The Pros And Cons Of The Insanity Defense

Many jurors and civilians can not accept that an individual was being let go because they were mentally ill, and not being held responsible for the action they had done. Most people believe that the NGRI verdict is better than the guilty verdict, when really that’s not the case. There are many myths that the public holds about the NGRI defense which can be a serious issue in search for help with ones’ health. Because of this, it is important that the public is educated and non-bias when it comes to deciding a

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. If you wouldn’t want a murderer to go free of punishment, then you don’t want a criminal to be innocent, because of their “mental illness”. The Insanity Defense should not exempt the mentally ill from prosecution for their crimes, reminding us that insanity is not an excuse for criminal actions.

Davis (2016) argued that the used of the “insanity” defense may be seen by others as unfair to other criminals because of the leniency towards one group of criminals and not others.

The insanity plea is defensive tactic used by perpetrators of violent crimes to place the blame of their actions on mental instability. In some cases, this defense is appropriate and legitimate. Other times, the plea may be used by a truly guilty party who is seeking out a lighter sentence than execution or life in prison with no parole. This tactic though, goes back farther than the recent Colorado theater shooting or even the attempted Reagan assassination. The earliest use of the insanity plea can be found in 1843 when a man named Daniel M’Naghten killed an

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

This reasoning is based on willful intent, which is very essential to an insane person. This means they cannot form such intent. However, mental disease does not stand for legal insanity. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove his insanity. This defense allows a mentally ill defendant to evade prison on the assumption that they were not in control of their actions Many critics of this defense argue that many defendants use it to escape justice. The problem with this defense is that it requires highly qualified psychologist to determine the mental state of a defendant. Most times the jury may not fully comprehend the terms used or the final analysis.

Without the insanity plea, those who are not in equal in mental stability are disproportionately punished by being convicted as any other criminal. The insanity defense is not an attempt to justify the person’s actions by any means. The plea deal is simply a way of ensuring a punishment commensurate to that of their mental boundary. If a defendant has no possible method of controlling his or her thoughts, then his or her punishment should not be equal to that of someone who is fully capable of forming a mens rea. Moreover, despite the prevalence of the insanity plea in our popular culture, it is not that prevalent in actual court cases. As rare as an insanity plea is, the chance of being acquitted by pleading “not guilty by reason of insanity” is even more rare. The stakes of pleading insane are high, and if one is found guilty, then his or her incarceration time may be substantially longer than that of a simple guilty verdict. The mentally ill, due to the state of their minds, cannot be expected to think the same as a sane person. They cannot be expected to completely grasp the concept of their action. Therefore, the insanity plea is crucial to the idea of justice that America holds so true to its

However, punishing those with mental illness in the same fashion as those whom know of the wrongfulness of their crimes is unfair. It would be beneficial for society and for the health of those with mental illnesses to be found guilty of the crimes they have committed but to be treated separately from other individuals without mental illnesses. Not allowing the use of the insanity plea would eliminate many unfair tactics used by lawyers when defending their clients as well as eliminating any uncertainty in determining one’s mental culpability. In lieu of the plea, courts who provide proper treatment to individuals who are deemed insane would allow for the public to retain a sense of safety and trust in the judicial system. Mentally ill individuals should not automatically be granted use of the insanity plea unless they undergo examination by mental health professionals on both the prosecuting and defending sides. The mentally ill, if convicted for their crime(s) should also receive proper medical treatment for their particular condition until they are cleared by mental health professionals. The current use of the insanity plea will only pose future problems for the country and its citizens; by not allowing individuals to use the plea, unless in extreme circumstances, most

The Untied States has the highest rated of adult incarceration about 2.2 million in jail or in prison. About half of those inmates are mentally ill; the cause of this problem may me a result of deinstitutionalization of the state 's mental health system. In other words, the state has put the mentally ill humans in a correctional facility as they were in an asylum and the prisons holds more mentally ill humans than a state hospital nationwide. These offenders are mistreated inside of jails and prison, believes it or not it has been proven.

The legal backing, and the reason I am against the abolition of insanity defense is because the person who commits the act is not aware of the nature and the quality of the act and does not know that what is being done is wrong. People should not be convicted if they do not understand the concept of

Walter may be charged with first-degree murder due to the felony murder rule. Walter committed the forcible felony of breaking and entering. Walter’s attempt at murdering his father caused his father to have a heart attack and die. Walter is responsible for his father’s death because it occurred while he was committing a forcible felony. First-degree murder applies to Walter’s case because “a person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits first-degree murder if he is attempting or committing a forcible felony other than second degree murder” (Illinois Criminal Code). Walter unleashed a chain of violence when breaking and entering and attempting to kill his father and it ultimately resulted in his father’s death so this case qualifies as first-degree murder under the felony murder rule. Under the felony murder rule intent is not required. Walter could use the insanity defense in this case. He suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and refuses to take his medication. Mental illness is necessary to use the insanity defense and

Hearing the word insane when I was younger always made me think of Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland when the Cheshire Cat says, “We 're all mad here. I’m mad. You 're mad”. To be insane is to be mentally deranged but I used it to describe friends or peers who acted enthusiastically or unreservedly. Insanity is a mental illness so severe that a person is unable to tell fantasy apart from reality, unable to handle their affairs due to psychosis, or is likely to show uncontrollable impulsive behavior. However, insanity can also mean foolish or senseless. People interpret this word differently depending on the situation. As I grew up, my friends began using insanity to describe people who acted crazy or impulsively. I perceive

The insanity defense is used by criminals who plead that they are mentally insane to avoid a more serious sentence. In most of the insanity defense cases, the defendant typically has some sort of mental issue during the time of the crime that caused them to commit the crime. “A criminal defendant who is found to have been legally insane when he or she committed 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” (Reuters). There are countless reasons to why an individual might plead to be criminally insane.

While we have a justice system that is based off laws and cases that come before, and