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.
According to WGBH Education Foundation (2014), out of the court cases that plead insanity only 1% of those cases is a criminals outcome affected. Therefore, the few cases that are changed by the plea of insanity are very significant and have to meet certain standards. Jeffrey Dahmer had many mental illnesses but was not considered insane enough to add to this statistic. Jeffrey Dahmer’s case was not the most significant point in the courts understanding of mental illness because he was able to decide if an action was right or wrong, he was not considered insane, and pleading insanity did not benefit his outcome. Biography.com (2018) states that Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial killer who was convicted of the murders or 17 males between 1978 and 1991.
The Supreme Court tested again the procedure and criterion of competency for execution of a mental illness defendant in 2007 in Panetti v. Quarterman (Panetti I). The Supreme Court ruled in Panetti that to be executed an inmate must not only be aware of the reason for his execution, the inmate must have a rational comprehension of the State’s reasoning for his
Those matters are for the trier of fact alone. Id. In this criminal case a mental health expert is prepared to offer an opinion on the whether the defendant was insane
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 June of 2001, the entire nation was deeply disturbed by the horrific acts committed by a suburban Texas housewife, and mother of five. Andrea Yates had drowned all five of her young children in the bathtub of their home. Yates called the authorities and her husband Rusty Yates to the home, where she confessed to killing her children. According to Faith McLellan of the Lancet Medical Journal, Andrea Yates’s bizarre reasoning behind this horrific act was because she believed to have been marked by Satan, and that in order to save her children from hell she needed to take their lives (McLellan, 2006). Yates pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity on the basis of mental defect due to postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis.
What is the definition of criminal insanity and is it good enough to prevent real criminals to being sentenced to a comfy mental asylum? Traditionally, the test of insanity
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
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
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
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.
On the other hand, diminished capacity is the concept that comes from the idea that certain mental disorders may reduce an offenders’ culpability. Diminished capacity is closely related to the insanity defense but does not consider the offender to be legally insane. A successful defense sees the offender as guilty but usually result in a mitigated punishment. The Texas Penal Code does not consider diminished capacity as an affirmative defense but instead uses the defense during the prosecution phase once the defendant has been found guilty. Diminished capacity includes an array of mental disorders varying from depression to schizophrenia.
A case can be changed due to the call of the insanity plea. Nevertheless, This may cause a possible difference to the charge of the defence. In a court case dealing with murder such as the issue with the Clutter family, the Insanity plea was brought into thought to test if Perry and Dick were mentally stable during that time. By definition, the insanity plea is an argument stating the defense was not responsible for their actions due to a psychiatric disease at the time of the act, consequently, making him/her unaware of the occurring actions moreover the later consequences. In the book, In Cold Blood by Truman Capote, the main characters Perry and Dick killed the Clutter family committing the crime of the century.
The purpose of an insanity defense is usually to help those who have mental disabilities and do not understand what or why they are being charged with a crime. It will help them get a lesser sentence and in some cases even be acquitted of those crimes if you can show your client had a mental break, was under duress, past history of abuse, your home life, if you can prove that your client is unstable for any reason, you can use the insanity defense. It’s just whether the jury believes it or
Texas revised its insanity defense statute after John Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity for the 1981 attempted assassination of then-President Ronald Reagan. The Hinckley verdict enraged many and fed the common misconception that those defendants “got away with murder.” A key requirement in criminal law is mens rea: a “guilty mind.” The reaction and statute change defined mens rea as simply knowing the act was wrong (Princeton.edu, 2005).
