Killing somebody is not always done with premeditation or intentionality. The killer is not always trying to actively kill someone because he or she is an unbalanced, dangerous person. The killer could have ended the life of someone without actually wanting it. The insanity defense, in that sense, protects a killer from an involuntary purposeful assassination. It can be applied to several cases, as the one that brought insanity defense into existence.
The differences The due process model is pegged on the belief that it would be better if a criminal found innocent goes free rather than have one innocent person in jail. On the other hand, the crime control model argues that it is better to have a innocent person detained, questioned, tried and found innocent then let free than have a society full of criminals roaming
Retributivists claim that criminals deserve punishment in proportion to their crime. Retributivists give desert a central place but only to a latter sense of desert as a demerit, or what we might call retributivist desert. Someone is thought to have desert not merely on the account of his committing a wrongful act, but on the account of his committing illegal act. There are many actions that are wrong, but not punishable because they are not illegal act. Retributivism punishes criminals for the wrongful act they performed; retributivism is backward looking.
So, in such instances when a person has no will to live, the loss of life penalty does not deter them in any respect. If we are seeing that the death penalty is not running a roadblock to people committing crimes, then what is the purpose of it. A better deterrent is wanted which might make the offender less likely to give in to a life of crime. If this type of deterrent become observed then criminals could have second thoughts of committing the crime due to the fact they could think that they may get caught.
DANIEL COLON CJA 301 MODULE 2 CASE TRIDENT UNIVERSITY The Miranda rights have been established to provide suspected criminals their rights upon being arrested. By being read these rights, the criminals know what they are entitled to, such as the right to remain silent and to obtaining an attorney (Prentzas, 2005). However, in recent years many terrorist suspects have not been read these rights and it has come to the point that many people, lawmakers and officials believe that they should not be entitled to the rights that are drawn out in the Miranda warnings. As these terrorist suspects are innocent until proven guilty, are no different than any other criminals, and have the Fifth and Sixth Amendments backing them up, they should be guaranteed the rights given by the Miranda warnings.
Stark points out that objective recklessness ‘’does not require such advertence to risk’’ unlike subjective recklessness wherein it was required that ‘’the accused foresaw an unjustified risk’’ and with that, objective recklessness was subject to criticism as it was seemingly concerned with a state of mind. This, allowed many defendants to evade liability as it is very precarious to expect a prosecution to be able to prove that a person foresaw a risk of harm occurring. Furthermore, ‘Caldwell recklessness’ paved way for unfair decisions being made in the courts such as in Elliot v C where young girl with learning difficulties was convicted of arson. The decisions caused an outcry as it led to the ‘’punishment of a defendant who fails to appreciate the risk she was incapable of foreseeing’’ . This unfair decision was reaffirmed in the later case of R v Coles where no allowances for age or a non-intellectual mind were made.
False memories Repressed memories are often recovered in therapy. The issue with treating a repressed memory that was recovered during therapy as contingent for a court case is that there is no way to prove that the therapy did not falsely construct the memory, leading to a false memory. A false memory can be misinterpreted as a repressed memory if the individual, for instance, feels a lot of emotion towards the false memory; “victims may experience ‘denial,’ an unconscious defense against painful or unbearable memories and feelings about the crime” (“How Crime Victims React to Trauma”). However, it is important to note that just because a “memory might be false does not mean that the person is deliberately lying” (Loftus, 1993, p. 525). False memories can be created unintentionally by the unconscious: or another way to explain how a memory can be constructed in therapy and believed to be truly recovered, one can look to false memory theories of “associative activation” and “thematic consistency” (Gallo, 2006, p. 51-53).
Rosenhan’s article says all normal are not detectably sane and the patients were not disruptive in their behaviour to consider them as insane. “The consequences to patients hospitalized in such an environment – the powerlessness, depersonalization, segregation, mortification, and self-labelling – seem undoubtedly counter-therapeutic”(p 258). These point to the fact that insanity may be attributed to one or more or all of the components of psychological model of
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
In order to convict a criminal, prosecutors are required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The most common criminal defenses fall under two categories, excuse and justification. An excuse is when a person admits to committing a criminal act but believes that he or she can’t be held responsible because there was no criminal content. Some excuses used in court today are; mental disorder, infancy (age), mistake of fact, mistake of law and automatism. In justification defenses, the accused admits to wrongdoing but argues that he or she should be freed from culpability or assessed reduced liability for the crime due to mitigating circumstances surrounding offense.
Memories are not a form of physical evidence and therefor should not be used. The use of physical evidence in criminal cases has a far better chance of convicting the true criminal, verses using memories or thoughts as evidence, there is no way to back up the evidence if it is based off of a memory. There have been a numerous amount of cases that have been dismissed due to the jury not believing in the repressed memories. It’s impossible to have a strong case when the jurors do not even believe the information given to
Yet, there is a significant proportion of death row inmates are mentally ill and the research evidence found suggests that mental illness is often, in fact, an aggravating factor as far as capital sentencing bodies are concerned. The Supreme Court eventually came to the conclusion of this: “If it is cruel and unusual punishment to hold convicted criminals in unsafe conditions, it must be unconstitutional to confine the involuntarily committed - who may not be punished at all - in unsafe conditions” (French, 2005) There are rights that each individual has, and there needs to be guidelines to make sure each person is treated fairly, even if they do not deserve such
I do not think that the plea bargain lets someone off easy. While they might receive a lesser change they also are having the fact that they admitted to doing something taken into consideration by the court system when they decide on the punishment. I feel that it equals out in the long run for those who end up taking the plea bargain. In small cases yes the person might get off with just probation, but is probation was something in condensation then the crime could not have been that detrimental. They would not offer something like probation to a deranged murderer if they confessed to killing someone.