But with the insanity plea, the accused have a chance in defending themselves. Stating that they are suffering from a mental disorder, and because of that, they have done things that are against the law. In conclusion people that are mentally ill should have the right to chose the insanity defense, it wouldn’t be fair to just throw them into a prison when they can get a much needed treatment, putting them into a prison can harm them and the prison. Just because the insanity testimony isn’t used a lot doesn’t mean it isn’t an actual issue, so we should keep
First of all, Danforth used various court techniques that were unjust in the eyes of most of the people in Salem. He created his own way of controlling the courts that was different from the rest of the colonies. For example, Danforth believed in the idea of guilty until proven innocent, which is the opposite of what it is today. He believes that if a person is accused then they are guilty until there is evidence to prove their innocence. Today, people are innocent until proven guilty.
Not only did the attorney use no real evidence to support his case towards Jefferson but the attorney also was not confident in his case. In one part of the court scenes Jefferson’s attorney states “He is innocent from all charges against him. But let’s just say he was not. Let us for a moment say he was not. What justice would there be to take this life?” ( Gaines pg: 8) This is a perfect example on how the attorney believes Jefferson is guilty in his case because in the end he gave the jury a mental image for a moment to vision Jefferson being guilty and then comparing the relationship on whether it matters to keep this man alive or not.
How would you feel if your best friend killed you? This is the controversial ending of John Steinbeck 's novel Of the Mice and Men. Currently there is a debate over the appropriateness of the book ending and whether or not students should read it. The character’s choice to murder was not justifiable because it goes against the law, religion, and obviously pre planned. First the law says that anybody that murder will get charged for it.
Statements by Thomas conveyed that he knew that what he had done was wrong after he had after committing the crime. However, it is unclear that he knew this while committing the murder. This, along with self-injury that included the removal of both his eyeballs, built a case against sentencing Thomas to death on the basis that he was mentally incompetent. His attorneys argued that his execution would violate the clause of the eighth amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Prosecutors in this case would claim that his history with drugs and alcohol put him in this state, rather than a true mental illness (TX Tribune).
[He said] it [didn’t] bother Perry a bit” (Capote 255). Dick is honestly trying to make Perry look very guilty instead of him. Even though Perry killed all four of the Clutters, Capote was still against the death penalty for Perry. Capote was also biased throughout the story because of his “relationship” with Perry. An example of Capote’s bias is when he wrote that “Dewey, a believer in capital punishment, its purported deterrent effects, and its justice, witnessed the hangings” but he could not watch Perry’s hanging.
Some historians argue that Gold, Bentley, and Greenglass confessed simply to make their prison sentences shorter. Still others believe that Ethel and Julius were unjustly executed, simply because they refused to confess. To this day, the Rosenbergs are the only people in history to be executed in the United States for
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. Stevens, Lise. 2010. "
The way we determine if someone is mentally insane began with the M 'Naghten case (1843) which developed the first test to determine if the defendant is insane. It set the standard that the jury has to decide if the defendant is insane only after hearing a medical testimony from the prosecution and defense experts. The rule created the presumption of sanity, unless the defense proved "at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong" (Francone, 2016). They will be deemed insane only if they were found incapable of knowing what they were doing
As a felon, coming out of prison all you know is how to live in prison, many are unsure how to go back into a normal functioning society and move along productively. Restoring, but also limiting their rights is a small way to show them that they are equal to all the others in society and keeps them from feeling like outcasts and the social pariahs that this world makes them out to be. Felons and Ex felons are equal to any other american citizen, their only difference is the ex felons have made mistakes in their past that have negatively affected them and their lives. However, mistakes made from the past should not affect people 's later lives in such a way that it can keep people from the obtaining the most basic of rights, this includes voting. Restoring the voting rights of ex felons would help them learn the value of the justice system and the law to strengthen their participation in average life practices.
Even after his diagnosis, however, the court found him legally sane at his trial. Although these are two famous cases for sociopaths, this does not mean sociopaths are violent. “The view that all sociopaths are violent, and all people who are violent are sociopaths” is actually inaccurate. (Landfield, 2014) The main symptoms that make these two cases bonifide psychopaths are the lack of empathy and remorse. It is possible for an individual to be violent and malicious without being diagnosed with a personality disorder, and also a person can be diagnosed with a personality disorder and be harmless and relatively ordinary while lacking complete empathy and
Additionally, the death penalty is institutionalized revenge, emotional disclosure, and monetary cost. Although some would argue that the death penalty is needed for justice to balance out punishment with crime, the death penalty does not apply to even the worst murderers or even those who have never murdered, but has tortured or done great harm. We all can understand how the feeling of anger and resent can
One of the main arguments or criticisms are that ‘the rule does not permit complete and adequate testimony’ and that the psychiatric operating under the rule serves as a judge. These are both arguments that people have against the rule. Many people have tried to pledge that they are insane at the time of the crime. Some of them were actually aware of the crime they were committing it, but are able to fool the legal system and get away with the defense of insanity. A valid argument towards the defense of insanity is that is difficult in proving beyond the reasonable doubt that the criminal was insane during the commitment of their crimes.
Possibly because there are normal functioning kids, and then there are those who have mental illness that provokes them to kill instead of interact with society. The authors i do not agree with are Marjie Lundstorm and Jennifer Jenkins, i do not agree with these authors because they simply keep making the mistake of thinking and calling these criminals “the poor children in prison” and “they’re not adults” these two authors think that the only ones to blame here are is the U.S. and criminal system, but i find it funny that it wasn’t the U.S who killed those people and it wasn’t the criminal system who conjured up the idea. Personally i find these “children” as guilty as any other criminal, their age shouldn’t make a difference on their punishment, when someone asks me the definitions of a child i describe them to be playing with dolls and action figures, pretending to be superheros and the good guys, i don’t describe them as these horrible monsters you see now, and apparently it’s because “We’ve created this image that teenagers are something to be feared” but that is not something i agree
It is wrong to kill an innocent thing. The most obvious symbol is Boo Radley; he was accused of being an “evil being” throughout the book, but at the end we learned that he was an innocent, friendly and respectful person. At the very end of the book, Atticus asked Scout if she understood why Mr. Heck Tate said what he said. Scout replies with, “Well it’d be sort of like shootin’ a mockingbird wouldn’t it?” this meaning that if Heck Tate accused Boo Radley for murdering Bob Ewell, then an entire investigation on Boo would happen leading to Boo Radley being sent to prison. It would be “hurting