A criminal defendant who is found to have been legally insane when he or she commited a crime may be found not guilty by reason of insanity. In some cases, the defendant may be found guilty but sentenced to a less severe punishment due to a mental impairment. In states that allow the insanity defense , defendants must prove to the court that they did not understand what they were doing, failed to know right from wrong, acted on an uncontrollable impulse or some variety of these factors. It is very difficult to prove that insanity exits and there are cases where people are used for insanity that are really not insane. I believe that pleading insanity should be abolished.
In the legal world, a nondescript defense that the defense might utilize is insanity. Legal Insanity is arguing that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to an episodic or persistent psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act. In many pieces of literature, the narrator or protagonist being insane based on their rhetoric can be debatable such as The “Tell-Tale Heart” by Edgar Allan Poe. By scrutinizing Insanity, one can better fathom why the narrator is insane and not legally responsible because of mens rea, actus rea, and control. Mens rea is the guilty mind of the defendant, meaning the defendant has the intent to commit the crime.
Russo v. White 241 Va. 23. Rather, "liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Id. Our client likely does not have a viable claim because even if the conduct of Mr. Bega was mean it has not reach the level of outrageous, intolerable or extreme. In Harris v. Kreutzer, 271 Va. 188, the court has to consider if the action done by the doctor was outrageous.
Just deserts claims that it is the offender’s choice to commit a crime, using the classical theory founded by Cesare Beccaria that states, “It asserts that a person is a rational individual with the free will to make a moral choice whether or not to engage in conduct known to be prohibited” (Starkweather, 1991, p.855). The offender made his choice and therefore must be punished for his act of crime. However, just deserts fails to acknowledge that factors in a child’s upbringing can affect their life choices as an adolescence and adult. As noted by Alley, Minnis, Thompson, Wilson and Gillberg (2014), adults who were “psychically, sexually, and emotionally abused as children were three times more likely than were non-abused adults to act violently as adults” (p.290). Consequently, giving punitive sentences and failing to help them psychologically will not help offenders when they are released back into the community.
8TH Amendment The 8th Amendment was formed to ensure that punishment for a crime was not cruel or unusual. It also has a clause for those with mental illness so that they will not face the death penalty for committing a crime that a sane person would commit. And those under the age of 18 would not face the death penalty. Since the 8th Amendment was attached to the Bill of Rights in 1791 it has taken on a different meaning for the accused of breaking the law and prisoner of today. In this paper we will look at several cases in which the 8th Amendment has been used in my opinion unethically to justify everything from gender reassignment surgery to claiming that one was mentally insane in order to get out of facing the death penalty.
Those who are insane can be declared innocent if proven “not aware” of what they were doing when they were committing a crime and breaking the law. The mentally insane are able to be given smaller punishment, no jail time, or no punishment. These people are also given treatment for their mental illness but, it is not much better than imprisonment. These defendants may have committed a horrible crime, but will not be punished for it, because they are insane. Some defendants may use the insanity plea to escape imprisonment, but they are not truly insane.
- Mens rea would be irrelevant to crimes and would push towards individual not having choice or free will but genetically born to be deviant. Strain theory may help understand and implement measure to reduce criminality early on: - Understands the issue our society puts on individual that force them to crimes - Helps educate the system to reform for less punishment and more education based for
Ken Kesey shows that the line drawn between sanity and insanity is based entirely on individual perception, and it is difficult to determine exactly where that line should be drawn. Minds may be altered through ingestion of prescribed medication, or be substance-free and shaped solely by social norms and values, but in all cases reality is shown to be an entirely subjective experience. The apparently sane reader will be aware at the start that they are reading the narration of someone who is paranoid and delusional, but at some
To properly determine whether or not the narrator in Edgar Allen Poe’s “The Tell Tale Heart” is insane a definition of insanity must be brought to light; possible explanations for his transgression must be examined, and the scope of information that has been provided must be understood for what it is. To understand if someone is insane or not, American society must lay bare a universal definition for insanity. As a whole, society today does not shy away from using words such as insane or crazy. This careless use of words leads to the definitions becoming less clear. Without a clear-cut definition for insanity not only does the word lose its power, but it also causes people to create their on definition for the word, usually with themselves
Retributivism justifies that punishment is payback for crime and its main goal is to give the offender their just deserts. We will first look into the idea of how we treat people as they deserve. According to Rachels, “Moral judgments about what to do frequently depend on considerations about what will happen as a result of our actions.” (Rachels, 1997). People deserve to be treated the same way they treat others. Rachels has also mentioned that people can control their fates by the way they treat others.
It can lead the jury to believe that this verdict is a compromise between the not guilty by reason of insanity and guilty, when in reality it is the same as guilty. Many states are getting rid of the not guilty by reason of insanity and replaced it with the guilty but mentally ill
When Rudolf Hess stated that he was actually prepared to do so, this right was ignored (McKeown 34). When Hess stated that he was prepared to act as his own counsel, this right was ignored. In denying Hess this right, the court argued they were doing him a favor. Hess was exhibiting signs of amnesia and insanity, and any effort made to argue his own case would likely have been compromised and unproductive. However, the opportunity to argue one 's own case is inherent in the right to counsel.
What are the intensities of INSANITY? INSANITY is “Condition of being insane; more or less permanent derangement of one or more psychical functions, due to disease of the mind.” (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language.) This definition describes people who suffer from mental illnesses and are deemed insane by society standards. Some would argue that things considered to be INSANITY are not insane. INSANITY is used to explain something others do not understand.
After reading about the forfeited right theory, I agree that the theory is not only ethical, but it is quite intriguing. “The rights forfeiture theory of punishment contends that punishment is justified when and because the criminal has forfeited their right not to be subjected to this hard treatment” (Wellman, 2012, p. 371). When a person is taken into custody, their rights have been taken away from them. All of their rights except the Miranda Rights in which the individual is entitled to. So that means if a person commits a crime then they have already violated thier own rights therefore, they should not be complaining about their rights being violated.