Arguments Against Insanity Plea

This causes many issues within the system due to the lack of evaluation during cases’, and hardly any representations of illnesses. These cases can be altered due to the public opinions during publicized cases which can pursue the judges and create a new outcome of a case. While the insanity plea proves that some criminals are mentally unstable, it should be used with caution because many convicted criminals abuse it during court cases’, imitate being mentally ill during an examination, and are able to avoid the death

I definitely think that malingering or faking insanity should have an added punishment for the offender who is trying to get away with the crimes that they committed. I feel like if they have some sort of way to show the offenders that malingering will cause more harm than good, there would less false insanity pleas (even though the numbers are already low). Malingering only really postpones the trail and makes it harder for everybody involved in the case.

When someone commits a crime, he or she may use mental illness as a defense. This is called an insanity plea or insanity defense. What the insanity defense does is try to give the alleged perpetrator a fair trial. At least in extreme cases, society agrees with this principle.The Insanity defense is probably one of the most controversial of all criminal defense strategies, and at the same time is one of the least used. In many cases when it has been used it has tended to cause public debate. The insanity defense confirms that the criminal defendant is not guilty because of his insanity. The theory of defense tells that people who are insane cannot have the intent necessary to commit a criminal action because they either do not know that action is wrong or cannot control their behavior even when they know the act is wrong. However, this theory is rather controversial as it is complicated to define insanity itself, and the situations in which it can be used to excuse criminal responsibility are complex to define

Davis (2016) argued that the used of the “insanity” defense may be seen by others as unfair to other criminals because of the leniency towards one group of criminals and not others.

Insanity is not a valid defense for one main reason. You are either crazy or you are not. In the end, Mack Herring was acquitted for murder. He felt as if he was pressured into doing it and he also thought he was helping her by committing the crime. He pleaded a temporary insanity defense. (Colloff) So what if you think your mental or crazy, using an insanity defense is not the way to go. If you think you’re going insane, get help. Do not use the temporary insanity defense or any other kind of defense to get you out of trouble. You should be accountable for you own

Are people with mental disabilities, who have killed people, actually innocent? People, including those with mental disabilities, are still human beings. They should be treated as such. Yes, the court should be aware of that fact and consider if the fact may alter their decision. On the other hand, that person needs to earn a punishment. In John Steinbeck’s novel Of Mice and Men, Lennie is the one portrayed as a man with a mental disability. George, by the end of the book, made a final decision. He decided that he was impelled to kill Lennie. Although it may be reasonable not to kill Lennie, it can be argued that he should be killed.

In the village of Holcomb, Kansas a wealthy family, the Clutters, was murdered on November 14, 1959. Dick Hickock and Perry Smith were convicted of these murders and received the death penalty. In Truman Capote’s novel In Cold Blood, the audience receives different viewpoints on why Dick and Perry either deserved the death penalty or not. Though the decision to sentence someone to death should be based on the truth, the truth is not always easy to define; Capote shows this through his depiction of the controversial executions of Dick Hickock and Perry Smith.

Mental illness significantly affects many around the world. In fact, about four-hundred and fifty million people worldwide suffer from one or more of the different known mental illnesses. That is one in every four people. Severe mental health issues such as severe anxiety disorder, antisocial personality disorder, schizophrenia, or sensory perception disorder are illnesses which are common among the people responsible for the numerous mass shootings in America. Many believe the possession of firearms in the hands of the mentally ill are the real cause of mass shootings. I agree with this statement. However, I do not solely blame the criminal for their actions due to their mental illness. Creating stricter gun laws, expanding mental health awareness

The Durham Rule defines that the defendant cannot be claimed as guilty due to a mental disease and defect at the time; as for the Model Penal Code states as the defendant obtains a mental defect that causes the defendant unable to appreciate the criminality of his conduct. The stability found in Perry does not follow the guidelines or requirements of the insanity defense tests. During the times of the murders Perry was in search of the money that they were targeting, as he searched the houses he came across Nancy’s room and found a doll like purse obtaining a silver dollar. As he attempted to get a hold of the dollar he dropped it causing him to get down on his knees to grasp it. The pitiful moment when he knelt caused him to think, “I had to get down on my knees. And just then it was like i was outside myself. Watching myself in some nutty movie. It made me sick. I was just disgusted...here I am crawling on my to steal a child’s silver dollar. One dollar. And I’m crawling on my belly to get it.”  He said he felt as if he was watching himself and was disgusted as to what he could see himself doing at that occurring moment. If one were to be mentally dysfunctional they would not see or feel themselves in that type of

Dr. Mark Nolan, Senior Lecturer at ANU College of Law, says that the NGRI plea “enables defendants to avoid criminal liability and standard criminal punishment” (Nolan 8). The main disagreement with America is the focus whether if the “guilty defendant” pursues to misuse the “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” as an alternative to imprisonment or if the criminally accused was at the time of committing the crime “clinically insane” and in need psychotherapy. Therefore, during this discussion of opposing viewpoints concerning the insanity defense being misused or ethical are going to be

In today’s day and age, a person does not get put to death for just any crime. A recurring argument against the death penalty is that sentencing a defendant to death violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition. The Eighth Amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishment. Mental illness is expressly recognized as a mitigating factor in most death penalty statutes. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion in the case of Ford vs. Wainwright that the use of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to execute a person whose mental state renders understanding of capital punishment is impossible. Yet, there is a significant proportion of death row inmates are mentally ill and the research evidence found suggests that mental illness is often, in fact, an aggravating factor as far as capital sentencing bodies are concerned. The Supreme Court eventually came to the conclusion of this: “If it is cruel and unusual punishment to hold convicted criminals in unsafe conditions, it must be unconstitutional to confine the involuntarily committed - who may not be punished at all - in unsafe conditions” (French, 2005) There are rights that each individual has, and there needs to be guidelines to make sure each person is treated fairly, even if they do not deserve such

Imagine finding a ransom note one day, telling you your son was taken and you must follow the directions given to get him back. Sadly, that is exactly what happened to Jacob Franks and Flora Franks. Murder has always been a big issue in big cities like Chicago. People are shot or stabbed in the heat of the moment, but not as common is a planned murder. There are many different reasons people kill other people, greed, anger, drugs, revenge, even self-defense, but the reason Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb killed Bobby Franks was for a completely different reason; to see if they could get away with it. In Chicago during this time there hadn’t been a lot of serial killers, just random murders, other than the infamous H.H. Holmes, so when people

This article talked a great deal about how the rules and procedures when it comes to the insanity defense are inconsistent and unclear. United States v. Hinckley showed the public how inconsistent and unclear the criminal procedures are. The article provided a statement from a juror involved in the Hinckley case. The gist of the statement was that even the experts used in the trial could not determine the defendant’s sanity, which made it even harder for the jurors to determine as well. The combination of confusing expert testimony and how the law was written were the cause of the not guilty verdict. The authors stated that the public blamed the instructions and were surprised by the verdict. The authors stated the reason why was because the jurors literally followed the law. They stated that the public presumed that the jurors would find Hinckley guilty, due to the factual guilt. Another deficit brought up by the authors, is the procedures when committing someone. Often times when a person is found not guilty of insanity they are taken to a mental institution. They soon get treated and then every so often they get a release hearing. Both authors brought up the fact that at the hearings, the roles reverse and the defense has to prove sanity and the government has to prove insanity, which only adds fuel to the confusion and contradictions. The authors agree that the

Morgan, R.D., Fisher, W.H., Duan, N., Mandracchia, J.T. & Murray, D. (2009). Prevalence of Criminal Thinking among State Prison Inmates with Serious Mental Illness. Law and Human Behavior, 34:324–336.

While we have a justice system that is based off laws and cases that come before, and