Schoenborn not criminally responsible for the murder of his children is undisputable and an appropriate decision based on the evidence and the administration’s objectives. The actus reus of the case cannot be disputed, as the accused confessed to the crime and both the defence and the crown agree that Mr. Schoenborn killed his children. However, the mental element of the crime is arguable, as the possibility of Mr. Schoenborn being in a psychotic state during the time of the offence is high. The evidence to support the fact that he did not form the mens rea of the crime can be derived from his history of mental illness as well as the evidence given by Ms. Clarke that he was a good and caring father. This demonstrates that he greatly cared for his children and their safety but was prone to having psychotic episodes that muddled his mind and led him to commit dangerous and unusual acts.
Then almost immediately after Alex contradicts himself by thinking “ In my book and the blind eyes of justice, the fact that a man had it coming doesn’t make killing him right “ (Patterson 194). This shows Alex’s true opinion in that he believes that killing a man who was clueless doesn’t make it right. It also shows he thinks everyone is innocent until proven guilty just like most cops are caught not and that he believes only courts can issue punishment not some group of vigilante
Many people may believe they know about the insanity defense as it has been brought to the public’s eye in many popular trials. For example, the cases of John Hinckley, who attempted to murder President Ronald Reagan, and Andrea Yates, who drowned her five young children, were highly publicized cases where the defendant was found guilty by reason of insanity. While many people may be familiar with these cases or similar ones, the insanity defense is highly misunderstood and disliked. To help judges and juries conclude whether a person is insane, three models have been devised. There is a wide variety of tests from state to state; however, they all typically revolve around one of the three models.
A huge advantage is that this here defense when successful can save a life, in which it can avoid a defendant from being put on death row. When a defendant pleas insanity, in the courtroom it creates an insanity atmosphere of guilt. When a defendant pleas insanity, the attorney admits that the crimes happen, but the defendant is innocent because of his or her mind (Samaha, 2015). By having a successful insanity defense, this can cause for the defendant to have a lenient charge when the jury reaches the verdict. The defendant would be declared either medically or criminally insane, he would not be trued under the same conditions of someone accused who is in the right state of
What we don’t hear about as often, however, are people with cognitive impairments in the criminal justice system. A person suffering from a cognitive disability may commit a crime and become easily confused with the criminal justice processes. Court processes involving individuals with intellectual disabilities are not given the same attention as court processes involving individuals with mental illnesses. This raises a very important question. Are cognitive disabilities successfully used as a defense?
We open the door to potentially violent drug crimes due to people who are high on drugs who use poor judgement, and could easily hurt someone or possibly injure or harm themselves. "Nonviolent" offenders sent to prison are not nice people. They could have committed any of the following crimes and still be classified "nonviolent": burglary, breaking and entering, grand theft auto, identity theft, drug trafficking, and the list go on and
According to Smith, the recognition of mental illnesses have forced the courts to question legal culpability (6). For example, the 1724 case Rex v. Arnold introduced the principle of “proof of insanity as an exemption from intent” (Smith 6). This led to the adoption of the “Durham Criterion,” in which the courts find that the defendant is not legally responsible if they are proven to have “substantial incapacity to conform to the law” (Smith 13). If we compare the legal history of mental illness to Szasz’s claims that mental illness is a myth, the legal treatment of psychopathy can be shown as another form of toleration. Szasz states that the myth of mental illness functions to create a “social intercourse [that] would be harmonious, satisfying, and the secure basis of a good life” (96).
And though the reader is by no means in a place to diagnose and right off all of his flaws and acts of violence as mental illness, we also can’t dismiss Hyde as a purely evil man. Additionally, since it is Hyde committing the crime and not Jekyll, it leaves the reader to wonder if this is Stevenson’s way of saying that all people, or possibly just the more creative ones, have a repressed side of themselves with traits similar to that of a mental illness, even if they themselves don’t present with one. Hyde was an extreme, he was a man who “trampled calmly over the child’s body and left her screaming on the ground” (50), having no regard for human emotion. However, repressed personas are often only depicted as extremes, and it is possible to say that if we all allowed our deep, unknown inner emotions surface, we could have the potential to be just as violent and
Some may think that kids wouldn’t be able to do a crime as bad as a grown person. On the news, internet, or social media, people see what horrible crimes some people commit, but most of those accused have one thing in common: age over 18. Some of the crimes committed are murder, rape, and others. Furthermore, there are times where juveniles, people who commit crimes under the age of 18, being tried as adults. The offenses that trigger the juveniles to be tried as an adult are generally, again, murder and rape.
Temporarily insane convicts elude the death penalty, Dick and Perry attempt to prove insanity, their bid falls short. Kansas brought back the death penalty to punish criminals. Mental illnesses have not been researched heavily at the time and, they