The defence of insanity is unusual in a number of ways. First, if successfully raised it will not result in an unqualified acquittal, but rather a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Upon such verdict, the court has a wide-ranging dispositive discretion which includes
There have been many controversies in the past regarding the insanity such as, why are these individuals allowed to be free. However, as listed above is the person has a mental illness then they are not held accountable for their actions. Which insanity defense is the most common used by the States? The most common insanity defense used by the states is the “M” Naghten because it defines that if a person commits a crime they may not be found guilty because of the individual mentality (Yoong, 2012). The Steinberg trial was a case where he was able to walk away as a free man, because the courts stated that he had a mental illness (Yoong, 2012).
“Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense.” according to Steve Landsberg. The insanity plea, although helpful in some cases, can be abused by a multitude of convicted criminals looking for an effortless trial. The first example of the insanity defense ever being used during a court case would be in the 1843. When Daniel M’Naughten tried to assassinate the prime minister of Britain, he was put on trial and was later acquitted due to being found not guilty by reason of insanity. This was later carried out through twenty-six other states, including the U.S., which created a precedent against the execution of the mentally ill in 1986.
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. The Insanity Defense is used in a criminal case and argues that a defendant is not guilty because they were not responsible for their actions while committing a criminal act. Some defendants under the defense may be declared NGRI; not guilty by
As it was being debated whether psychopathic diseases would be included in the model insanity standard, the American Law Institute attempted to exclude psychopathic and sociopathic conditions from consideration (Felthous, 2010). Then in 1961, it was declared by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that sociopathy would be sufficient in order to raise the issue of insanity. However, this issue of psychopathy and sociopathy inclusion in the insanity defense, and the insanity defense in its entirety remains a controversial issue. Since the 1970s, it seems there is a greater interest in restricting and abolishing insanity tests as well as excluding psychopathy from the defense, and that view is still present (Felthous, 2010). According to Felthous (2010), this tension has been long
It is clear that Juror Ten’s uncompromising belief that the accused is guilty is because of his dislike for the boy’s race. His prejudice is clear when he says that “I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say” when speaking about the boy (16). Juror Ten’s prejudice causes him to disregard all of the facts that are presented to him by Juror Eight that can prove that the accused is not guilty. Juror 10 allows his prejudice to blind him of the truth.
While we have a justice system that is based off laws and cases that come before, and there are also some cases that express the moral principles found in our societies for a case by case assesment. The idea that anyone who commits a crime, but is missing the ability to defer right from wrong shouldn’t be held to the same standards as someone who has a rational mind. For example, in “The Insanity Defense” the narrator talks about if a person is convicted of a crime, the prosecutor must prove two things; that the person engaged in a guilty act and that he or she had guilty intend. “But what about situations in which the person commits the act and intends to do so, but was suffering from a mental condition that impairs their ability to appreciate
Expert psychiatric evaluations were involved where both the parties presented their witnesses. To the judge’s despair both experts gave not only different but opposite conclusions. The defendant’s expert testified that the defendants were mentally unstable while the prosecutor’s expert was on the other side of the spectrum. The presiding judge bought the defendant’s story and decided to acquit the defendants relying on defendant’s expert’s testimony. It later came to be known that he failed to take the correct path of sentencing the defendants to death.
If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner... the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained .#