Although, using the insanity defense is questionable and poses a public safety risk, some critics would advocate for the use of the plea on behalf of those with mental illnesses. It is believed that the defense is “largely misunderstood” and feared by the public. Critics believe that individuals with mental illness should be able to plead insanity for reasons such as: (1) their illness can be caused by genes that they are born with, therefore they cannot help but act in the manner that they do, and (2) individuals who are ill are thought to be physically different than those who do not have mental illnesses; they are not able to access all emotions such as guilt, empathy or remorse. This can result in violent behavior that is at no fault of …show more content…
Also, according to a study funded by the National Institute of Mental Health in the early 1990’s, the defense is only used approximately one percent of the time and a quarter of those who use the defense have argued the defense properly to be found not guilty (Olin, 2009). This is only a small fraction of the population. In the article “Inside A Psychopaths Brain: The Sentencing Debate” by Barbara Bradley Hagerty, it was said that “the reason [individuals with violent behaviors] cannot access their emotions is that their physical brains are different.” This would mean that an individual prone to violent tendencies has a brain that reacts differently than that of the average person, which in turn warrant them to use the insanity defense and/or be held unaccountable for their actions.
To refute, there have been many instances have shown that a great deal of the population exhibits violent or psychopathic tendencies, but they do not exhibit violent behavior at any point
…show more content…
However, punishing those with mental illness in the same fashion as those whom know of the wrongfulness of their crimes is unfair. It would be beneficial for society and for the health of those with mental illnesses to be found guilty of the crimes they have committed but to be treated separately from other individuals without mental illnesses. Not allowing the use of the insanity plea would eliminate many unfair tactics used by lawyers when defending their clients as well as eliminating any uncertainty in determining one’s mental culpability. In lieu of the plea, courts who provide proper treatment to individuals who are deemed insane would allow for the public to retain a sense of safety and trust in the judicial system. Mentally ill individuals should not automatically be granted use of the insanity plea unless they undergo examination by mental health professionals on both the prosecuting and defending sides. The mentally ill, if convicted for their crime(s) should also receive proper medical treatment for their particular condition until they are cleared by mental health professionals. The current use of the insanity plea will only pose future problems for the country and its citizens; by not allowing individuals to use the plea, unless in extreme circumstances, most
People have their own opinions when it comes to issuing court trials, especially when it comes down to a person being found guilty, or a person being found not guilty by reason of insanity. Did this person know what they were doing when they committed a crime? Did they know it was morally wrong? Do they have any remorse for what they have done? These are all questions courts look at when someone has committed a brutal crime, but is it fair to claim someone as “insane” or “mentally ill”, rather than putting them behind bars and calling them a criminal like the rest of them?
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
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
Unlike serial killers with psychopathy they manipulate the system to benefit their own means to an end. Allowing this disorder to fall into the insanity defense would feed into their disorder in that it would allow for the manipulation of the system to
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 treatment of the mentally ill is a problem. Most people who are mentally ill are being mistreated and not receiving proper treatment, whether it be in mental institutions, prisons, and even in general society. There is no excuse for this mistreatment of the mentally ill, but there might be an explanation. The explanation is that many people do not understand the mentality of those who are not sound of mind. People do not see them as actually ill, as they would someone who has a physical disease.
Insanity is an illness an individual cannot overcome and will make decisions without thinking. Lacking the further knowledge of a criminal's mental state does not endorse the fate of acquiring the death
I agree that the insanity defense is morally right. There are defects of the system. However, the criminal justice system’s foundation is made up of moral integrity. As a society we have decided to excuse those who lack the moral capabilities to know right from wrong. The murkiness of the system should not automatically equate to the abolishment of the defense.
Most mentally ill people who are convicted on capital charges should not be executed, for three such reasons. Firstly, the executions would violate equal protection of the laws in any jurisdiction in which execution of children and people with mental illness of any kind that psychologically cannot fully comprehend what they are committing is barred. Secondly, many death sentences imposed on people with mental illness violate due process more so because their mental illness is treated by the aggravating factor, either directly or to create a separate aggravating circumstance. Thirdly, many mentally ill offenders, who are sentenced to death, will be so impaired to what is fully going on at the time of execution that they can not emotionally understand the significance of their punishment. Thus, they cannot be executed under the eighth amendment; Regarding this, the latter conclusion is required even if they are cured through some sort of treatment.
In countries which are legislatively and judicially fair and progressive, there exists a provision or series or provisions - which in Canada is known as the Not Criminally Response Due to Mental Disorder (NCRMD/NCR) designation - that aims to protect those who suffer from mental illness from the punishments and penalties endured in the criminal court system. The NCR defense in particular is a piece of legislation in the Canadian Criminal Code, which essentially states that a person is deemed Not Criminally Responsible of whatever offence they had committed on account that the person was suffering from a mental disorder or was declared legally insane at the time of the incident and was unable to appreciate their actions or that what they did
There are actually many intricacies associated in a mental health court process. For instance, there are “probations, parole, the courts, jails, the community health system…” involve in the cases, which is difficult to manage, especially, for someone with a mental disorder (Docgurley, 2011). Simply penalizing accused mentally ill people will not help them become better, so through this court system, they can maintain their human rights and have the support they require to improve their condition. Mental health court, thus, is a sufficient system because it will not incarcerate and isolate indicted mentally ill
Nowadays, while most scholars agree that treatment has drastically improved, there is heated debate over what rights mentally ill persons can and should hold. Such rights include the enforcement of unwanted treatment,
Conversations about criminal justice reform have to include the issue of incarcerating the mentally ill if the United States is serious about reducing mass incarceration and recidivism.
Mental illness and criminology: a review of related literature Aja Ferguson Chaminade University CJ 605 Dr. Allen 3/18/2017 I. INTRODUCTION Mental illness and criminology are two fields that continue to generate interest among researchers. One of the reasons that explain the consistent interest of scholars is the presence of a vast, unexplored territory where there is a dearth in available and updated information related to mental illness and criminology. Even though the study of the mentally ill and the criminal are two different spheres, it is not uncommon that individuals became criminals because they are mentally ill, just like it is not new to discover criminals in prison to develop
Dr. Ronald Markman, a psychiatrist who evaluates defendants and provides expert testimony in court cases, said “an insanity defense is introduced in less than 1 percent of all criminal cases in the state of California”