Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) is a form of insanity defense that allows for an individual to not be found guilty of a crime due to a mental defect or disease that results in a lack of mens rea, or the capability to intentionally commit a crime. However, simply having a mental illness or defect does not guarantee that an offender will be found NGRI. Not only would a defendant have to have a major or severe mental illness or disease, but the defendant would have to prove that their condition impaired them so greatly as to not have any control over their behavior or any concept that they had done anything wrong at the time of the offense. Although Bob undoubtedly had a diminished capacity for logic and reason in this case, the example as given does not provide enough detail to determine the nature of Bob’s personality or his potential motives in committing this crime. Nevertheless, there is one major flaw to Bob’s insanity defense: he tried to hide the crime. …show more content…
In order to be found NGRI according to the M’Naghten Standard, for example, Bob would not only have to be diagnosed with a mental illness or defect, he would also not have the ability to reason that he did anything wrong. Even under the ALI standards, Bob would only be found NGRI if he was able to prove that he was absolutely incapable of behaving within the confines of the law or that he was unaware of any potential wrongdoings as a direct result of severe mental illness or disease. If Bob truly lacked mens rea in this case, there would be no need to hide the cooler when police came to talk with
Under Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-502, does Aaron Wilson, 1) suffer from a mental disease or defect at the time of the incident, and 2) know right from wrong at the time of the incident; and will therefore be found guilty except insane? A.R.S § 13-502 states “a person may be found guilty except insane if at the time of the commission of the criminal act, the person was afflicted with a mental disorder or defect of such severity that the person did not know the criminal act was wrong.” Ariz. Rev. Stat.
At the 2002 trial, Yates pleaded not guilty, by using the insanity defense. The insanity defense argues that an individual should not be found guilty of a crime if they have a persistent psychiatric disease at the time the crime was committed. It was proved that Yates could tell right from wrong, so she did not meet the definition of the insanity in Texas (Walsh). The jury deliberated for almost four hours, and finally found Yates guilty. The jury rejected her insanity defense, and Yates was sentenced to life in prison.
For example, as seen in Clarke where the defendant left the supermarket which items she didn’t pay for, the judges ruled that in order to use the defense of insanity, the defendant’s powers of reasoning must be impaired; should he merely failed to use those powers, he wouldn’t be able to use the defense. In Clarke, the defendant was said to be ‘absent-minded’ and thus wasn’t able to use the defense of insanity. Another example can be seen in Kemp where the defendant irrationally attacked his wife with a hammer without any motives. It was later discovered that he was suffering from arteriosclerosis which caused a temporary loss of consciousness at the time of the crime. The defendant didn’t want to use the defense of insanity and instead used the defense of automatism.
Based on the legal definitions and description of court cases in relation to those definitions, Ana’s case can correlate with the insanity defense due to her reaction to the crime. As stated previously, while asleep in the park a male attempted to wake the client up causing her to go into a rage yelling “ Get off of me!” as she stabs this individual. After committing the crime Ana then went to into a state of sobbing, as well as being easy to calm down. Ana was also able to cooperate during her arrest, but she did not want to discuss what had occurred.
This test differs from the definition of mental disorder in section 16(1) of the Code, since the test “is predicated on the existence of a mental disorder and focuses on the ability to instruct counsel and conduct a defence” (R v Whittle, 1994). Additionally, the
It lists that in order to declare a defendant not guilty by insanity, it must be proven that the person is significantly mentally ill and was not able to differentiate right from wrong in the instance of their crime (Levin). There was no dispute between prosecution or defense that Andrea was mentally ill, it was simply if her illness inhibited her judgement enough to meet the legal standards. Her family and defense attorney all believed that there was no questioning the severity of her condition, she simply could not function as a regular human being, and her judgement was clouded. Andrea’s mother-in-law, Dora Yates, who frequently watched over Andrea and witnessed her daily condition, stated, “I don't think she knew how to cope . . . how to function.
In the field of criminal law there is a certain type of criminal defense that comes to the court and has a low success rate. These cases concern the mental capacity of the defendant and if they have enough mental capacity, or are sane enough, to be aware of their crime and consequences of crime. The insanity defense is extremely rare because of how difficult it is for the defense to prove to the court and jury that the defendant did not have the mental capacity to understand what they did wrong and the consequences from it. The case of Myers III v. State of Indiana is one example of criminal responsibility and mental capacity. This case has information that can be connected to the textbook with the insanity defense tests, mental competence
My client Calvin Smith is not guilty due to reason of insanity. Mr. Smith is schizophrenic, considering the fact that he was able to hear ersatz noises, he has anosognosia that results in him denying his mental illness, as well as schizophrenics are known to have voices that tell them to do certain things- such as harm others, and themselves. With this information, the allegation is correct, he did murder the man. Although, he is not in the right mind to know it was wrong. This is because Calvin Smith is schizophrenic.
Part 1 Explain the process of competency restoration. According to Hubbard, Zapf, & Ronan, (2003), “Competency restoration is the process used when an individual charged with a crime is found by a court to be incompetent to stand trial, typically due to an active mental illness or an intellectual disability.” Before the legal process can continue, a suspect should be restored to competency. That gives the suspect the chance to consult with his or her defense lawyer to have a factual and rational understanding of the legal proceedings.
Katherine Jaros Dr. Ann Burgess FORS5317.01 4/19/2023 Understanding Andrea Yates: Mental Health and its Relationship to Violent Crime INTRODUCTION Mental health in criminal offenders is a highly complex and controversial issue that plays a critical role in determining how we understand and evaluate violent crimes. A significant number of offenders who commit violent crimes have some form of mental illness or disorder, which drives interest in studying such cases. Furthermore, during the legal process, there are always two sides that approach mental health in criminals and put it in consideration differently as they argue for opposite outcomes in the courtroom. Defense lawyers seek to emphasize the role that the illness or disorder
What exactly is the insanity defense? In a criminal trial situation the insanity defense is used to explain that the defendant was not responsible for his or her actions at the time the crime was committed due to a mental health illness or a mental handicap. Now you have to think of the reasoning, is this form of defense used as an actual defense for one who irresponsibly committed a crime or as a last resort hoping for an acquittal before a defendant is about to be handed a guilty verdict? Most people being asked would say it is being used for sane people trying to get out of a crime they committed, but I believe the insanity defense is misunderstood by society and should strictly be used for its creation of mentally ill individuals.
The insanity plea was created as a compassionate way to help the individuals who would benefit more from a mental institute rather than a prison. White’s position firm and filled with conviction, however it lacks substance and makes the reader question his research. In four states alone there are no verdicts where an individual can plead not guilty by insanity. He directs his argument with the examples of individuals such as David R. Berkowitz, Jim Jones, and Adolph Eichman. David R. Berkowitz was an individual who attempted the insanity plea but was denied that plea and was found guilty and sentenced to six life sentences in prison on
In refers to class discussion, as a result of the M’Nagthen case, the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 (IDRA) is only use when the defendant does not understand the nature of the crime committed. Therefore, although neurosis or personality disorders qualify as a mental disease according to the DSM-5; the law has eliminated these types of disorders from being utilized in courts as a form of defense. The law has also excluded the irresistible impulse or inabilities to comply with the rules as a means of defense in the federal
"The median amount of time taken to complete adult NCRMD cases was 132 days, which is 17% longer than the 113 days taken for non-NCRMD criminal court cases." (Miladinovic, Z., & Lukassen, J., 2015, February 25) This data demonstrates that those in charge of the case must know the case in order to set a just trial. "The verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) is a final decision reached when a judge or jury finds that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder while committing the criminal act and as a result is exempt from criminal responsibility (Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, s.672.34). An individual found NCRMD is neither acquitted nor found guilty (Latimer and Lawrence 2006); the court or Review Board may make one of three dispositions: absolute discharge, conditional discharge, or detention in a hospital (Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, s.672.54)."
The insanity defence is a defence that can be used in trial by a defendant to argue that they are not guilty by reason of insanity. It is based on whether they were of sound mind at the time of the crime and whether they could differentiate between the right and wrongs of their actions. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, the laws, legislation, and tests regarding the insanity defence have evolved drastically as subsequent ways of determining insanity and who receives the defence have been deemed insufficient. Throughout the years, the defence has become less and less of a loophole for defendants trying to use it as a ‘get out of jail free card’ where they can avoid a just punishment, as now, clear, and convincing evidence to prove they