DOI: 10.4324/9780203980774 This journal article exsplores the insanity as a defence, impaticular reviewing two types of insanity, these being out of touch with reality and delusion. This article also reviews the current legal system and the presumption that all persons are responcible for our actions until proven otherwise, such as having mental illness. Reznek (2007) agrues that a person should be excused if unaware of commiting a wrongful act due to that they where unable to control themselves. This article also details the legal device of the insanity defence as a way of excusing the actions of the person and the influence that it has had on previous cases. This essay would be very appriopiate as a researcher in this current case, as it perceives mental illness as an excuse for being accused of a crime.
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.
They argued that Ferguson's insistence on representing himself and not pleading insanity demonstrated his psychological incompetence to stand trial. Some argue that Ferguson's attack was a hate crime; however, the case was not prosecuted.
“Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense.” according to Steve Landsberg. The insanity plea, although helpful in some cases, can be abused by a multitude of convicted criminals looking for an effortless trial. The first example of the insanity defense ever being used during a court case would be in the 1843. When Daniel M’Naughten tried to assassinate the prime minister of Britain, he was put on trial and was later acquitted due to being found not guilty by reason of insanity.
For example, people try using insanity as a defense when being prosecuted in a criminal case. (Math, Kumar, and Moirangthem) It is based on the assumptions that at the time of the crime, the defendant was not suffering from severe mental illness. Therefore, they were well aware that they were committing a crime.
Justice Tindall, whom was present at the M’Naughten trial when the insanity plea became a legal defense, breaks these rules into 3 statements. “Every person is presumed sane unless the contrary can be proven otherwise” (Allnut, et al. 293), which in this case it cannot. “A person suffering a ‘partial delusion’ should be dealt with as if the circumstances of the delusion was real” (Allnut, et al. 293). If Minnie was suffering from some sort of delusions, she would have used that as an excuse once Mr. Hale found her or would’ve had some crazy story on what happened. She got straight to the point.
There is also an inclination to believe that if he had not suffered from this state, then the offence would not have been committed, specially not in the barbaric way it was done. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the accused willfully preformed the act, nor that the mens rea and the actus reus coincided while he was not in a psychotic state. (Roach, 113) Related to this finding is another element that supports the verdict of the Honorable Judge, which is the Principle of Fundamental Justice that states that no one should be “punished for morally involuntary actions.” (Roach, 82) A person who successfully raises the mental disorder defence is considered to be morally innocent of the act because they were not acting freely, in this case, free from psychotic ideations.
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.
There are three components that make up the criminal justice system – the police, courts, and correctional facilities – they all work together in order to protect individuals and their rights as a citizen of society to live without the fear of becoming the victim of a crime. Crime, simply put is when a person violates criminal law; the criminal justice system is society’s way of implementing social control. When all three components of the criminal justice work together, it functions almost perfectly.
The court dismisses the plea quickly because “the justice system ignores psychosocial complexities and histories in favor of black and white definitions of right and wrong” (Myers). The justice system in this time very rarely accepted pleas of insanity or mental illness. Capote wrote that “after an hour’s conversation with the defendants, the doctor rule[d] out that neither man
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
This is because the 8th amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Giving someone who has mental disease the death penalty would be seen as a cruel and unusual punishment. Some may argue that even though the killer did murder the man, he did not show any empathy for what he did. This can be proven otherwise because of the fact that someone under the influence of mental disease may not always be able to control their actions. In similar cases such as the Walton vs. Virginia, and Eley vs. Ohio, the same practice was used.