Aside from the verdict from the Hinckley trial, the public’s view on the insanity defense is not altogether accurate. There’s a misconception that criminals who use this type of reasoning as a plea can evade punishment. When it comes to the use of the insanity defense, only about one percent of criminals use this type of justification. By using the insanity defense, the criminal is admitting they are guilty of the crime however they are requesting a not guilty verdict based on the state of mind they were in at the time of the crime. This can get tricky for a defendant because if not proven mentally ill, they will be found guilty and usually endure a harsher sentencing for the crime.
The issue is whether M. Bega’s conduct was outrageous and intolerable. This element is satisfied when the outrageousness requirement "is aimed at limiting frivolous suits and avoiding litigation in situations where only bad manners and mere hurt feelings are involved." Id. "It is insufficient for a defendant to have acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal." Russo v. White 241 Va. 23.
He was found not guilty, because he was unable to realize the wrongfulness of the act. After this, public outrage surfaced and formed the legal definition of insanity, which evebtually became known as the M’Naghten rule (Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2008). A plea of not guilty by reason of insanity claims that due to mental illness, the defendant should not be held morally responsible for the crime. In order to successfully plead the insanity defense, a defendant must not only show that he is mentally ill, but also show that there was a link connecting the mental illness and the criminal offense (Grachek,
A. O’Connor v. Donaldson 1975: In this precedent, the supreme court decided that the presence of mental illness alone is not enough to warrant involuntary confinement. If the patient is no longer found dangerous to him/herself or others, there is no justification to continue confinement. Commitment needs to be justified on the basis of mental disease and dangerousness. This precedent is applicable to the case of Mr. Y, because the statement above states dangerousness and mental illness as a basis for justifying continual commitment for Mr. Y. If the preponderance of evidence shows that Mr. Y is dangerous due to his mental disease, then deciding to civilly commit him would meet the requirement of this precedent case.
unreliability and irresponsibility. As West mentioned, Iago has no motives. “His motives-or excuses- come more as afterthoughts, not as stimuli toward the heinous actions he perpetrates.” (West 29-30) This is a bit of an understatement. Iago will commit any crime without apparent reason or with high risks of him being discovered, more than people usually do. This becomes very
I thought it was obvious. I mean nobody proved otherwise.’ – This is the justification given by juror 2 on why he thinks that the boy is guilty. This statement involves the ‘Appeal to Ignorance’. Just by saying that nobody proved that God doesn’t exist, therefore God exists, isn’t enough. Likewise, saying that nobody proved that boy isn’t guilty, so he is guilty, involves error.
So to my wonder, would there be philosophical thinking without free will? Some philosophers, to my surprise, do believe free will is an illusion. Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument, argues that nothing can be causa sui or that nothing can be the cause of itself (On Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument, Pg. 1). Causa sui states that “we can never be ultimately morally responsible for our actions” (Your Move: The Maze of Free Will, Pg.1).
This is another moment that further confirms Dexter’s profiling in being a psychopath since once again of his inability to or lack of emotions. This also supports Burkley’s idea of the successful psychopath in the article “Is Dexter a Successful Psychopath”; the article defines a “successful psychopath [as one] who fits the criteria of a psychopath, but is largely successful in their exploitations and so is able to avoid getting caught” (Burkley, 2010). To add on, Dr. Judy Ustina states that psychopaths have the ability to read and respond accordingly to social situations (“How accurately did author Jeff Lindsay portray a psychopath?”, 2007). Particularly, even though Dexter is unable to cry, he still tries to “fit in” or conform to social norms; in this case, he feels that since his partner is crying, the ultimate norm is for him to cry too, especially since he needs to be accepted to maintain this persona as husband and a father figure to her children to hide his true self, his reality. The text also continues to affirm evidence that psychopaths have the ability to manipulate the criminal justice system (“Psychopaths and Serial Killers, 171), surely Dexter using everything he has
Glaucon claims that the sole reason one would pursue justice is if he or she is willed into in by his or her lack of power. P1- Some people lack the power to do injustice while others have the power to do injustice (Group 3 & Collaboration, P1-P2). P2- Both just and unjust people would do injustice if they have the power to do so (Group 3 & Collaboration, P3). C1- One will do justice only when he or she lacks the power to do injustice (Group 3 & Collaboration, C1). C2- Those with the power will choose injustice unless compelled by justice (Group 3 & Collaboration, C2).
The truth of the matter is that the insanity defense is rarely ever successful. As the public cries that this defense is a “get out of jail” free card it really isn’t. Statistics show that less than 1 percent of all felony cases are successful pleading insanity (Worrall, 2014). If a defendant is legally insane, it does not necessarily mean that he or she can plea insanity. Crutchfield stated that sanity is a legal concept, not a psychological one (2009).