This means that the guilty individual receives the fairest possible sentence. A comparison to another insanity defense used, was the case of the Esposita brothers who had clearly faked being insane to get out of a death sentence. The Esposita brothers set a plan to gain money through robbery and were well equipped to take lives if anyone stood in the way. Both brothers were charged for murder of police officers and citizens. During their court trial, the Esposita brothers pretended to show signs of insanity by speaking in gibberish and banging their heads against the table. The jury was not convinced due to lack of evidence showing past history of insanity and had sentenced them to death by electrocution in 1942. This is one of many cases where a criminal had attempted to get out of a deserving consequence by using the insanity defense. Although it is rarely the case, some criminals convince the judge that they truly are insane when in fact, they were simply successful in fooling the judge. In comparison to the case of Dennis Pozniak who clearly was insane, it was determined that there was no benefit to the actions performed by Dennis and it was simply a spontaneous event that was brought due to an insane state of mind. Is it fair for an individual to get out of their deserved consequence simply because they convinced the judge that they are insane? I believe that unless the…
The Insanity defense first came into England’s radar when Daniel McNaughton, who attempted to murder, Prime Minister Robert Peel. McNaughton Rule became a common law test to determine criminal liability in relation to mentally disturbed defendants. Another notable case is that of Reagan, John Hinckley who in 1981 attempted to assassinate the president.…
Introduction: The insanity defense has been used for many years and believed to began around the 1720’s where the first formal defense was used in a court in 1724. Judge Tracy, the judge that ruled over the first case coined a term “The wild beast standard” that states “for someone to be insane he must be totally deprived of his understanding and memory, and not know what he is doing anymore than an infant, a brute, or a wild beast” (Neville, 2010, pp.3-4). After the Daniel M’Naghten case, a man who attempted to kill a prime minister due to his belief that the prime minister was conspiring against him ended up killing the secretary, there was a new rule many states began to follow. After M’Naghten was found insane by multiple experts because he was unable to know the difference of right and wrong therefore he was acquitted of all charges (Neville, 2010, p. 5) a rule was developed labeled after M’Naghten.…
Who can determine if a person is insane, a doctor, a lawyer, a judge, or a jury of your peers? Does any one person really know why someone acts the way they do? Legal insanity is not knowing whether the act you committed was wrong or right. Leon Czolgosz assassinated President William McKinley. Of all the Presidential assassinations, McKinley’s had the most dangerously political movement. This assassination was followed by Theodore Roosevelt taking over the Presidency of the United States. In the 1900’s, the emergence of medicine and law had just began. It was not until the late 1880’s that courts even considered expert witness and expert testimony. Courts began to allow doctors to testify on their medical opinions of defendants they did not treat until after the crimes were committed. The alienist (as mental doctors were called during this time) wanted Leon Czologsz to be criminally insane. His insanity would have made for an easier trial.…
The insanity defense is only raised in 1% of cases and then only successful 25% of the time it is used; although its rarity, the legal court has very detailed rules. Most rules describe not guilty by reason of insanity as not being aware of what you were doing in that exact moment. Adam Banner suggests that the Eddie Routh case had an accurate ruling of guilty because of his claim that, “...the disposition is ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’. It is not ‘not guilty by reason of mental illness’,”. Only Mental Health America would disagree, stating, “The Court has indicated that states may be required to provide at least some minimal defense based on mental illness,”. Coincidently, these changes have not been made thus…
You are considered insane if a mental disorder stops you from managing matters or obeying the law. John Hinckley’s verdict of Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity created a big commotion among the public. Many felt that the verdict was being used as a means for criminals to avoid their prison sentence, and to await their time in a prison facility (Simon, and Aaronson, 1988).…
This paper will include what the insanity statutes are in Ohio, the state that I live in. I will also talk about how often the insanity defense is used in the United States. As well as how successful this defense is. I will also discuss if psychologists should give their ultimate opinion in regards to sanity cases as well as the ethical issues that may rise from their opinions. Lastly, I will discuss how difficult it is to provide adequate psychological care for mentally ill patients while they are incarcerated in prison. The care they would have received had they been institutionalized in a mental hospital instead would have resulted in fewer deaths.…
The insanity defense should be allowed for those with a mental illness when they commit a crime since they are not in control of their actions. “If a person really does have mental incapacity, and it will be considered that his condition has caused him to commit a capital crime, which means the defense could save his life. Put in mind that a capital crime carries a punishment of eventual death. However, being found not guilty because of insanity means that a capital punishment is out of the question. It could mean that the accused would just be housed at a professional mental health treatment center. Though it might not be jail, still it gets him off the streets,” (12 Profound Pros and Cons of the Insanity Defense [Web log post]. (n.d.). Retrieved May 16,…
For starters, the expression, the courtroom definition, and the psychiatrist term of the word “insanity” are all different and all have different connotations. In order to be considered insane in today’s court, you have to be completely separated from reality. As described by Vaknin, “A perpetrator should go unpunished - and be hospitalized instead - only if he is found to be completely divorced from reality by diagnosticians from both sides, a far cry from today’s insanity defense” (2). To prove that a suspect is in fact separated from reality, a few things have to be proven. The first thing to be proven is if the suspect had a diminished capacity. Macbeth showed that he was mentally impaired when he brought the daggers back instead of putting them with the guards and smothering them with blood. Although he knew that he was killing, he was not stable enough to carry out the entire crime. After the first crime, he could not control his behavior anymore. It became out of hand and he wasn’t able to control it anymore. He felt the urge to kill; which proves that he had an irresistible impulse which could no longer be controlled. In a way, he also lacked criminal intent. While he intended to kill, he did it because he believed that killing the king was what he was meant to do.…
Many people have heard about the insanity defense in different famous cases where it has come up and been used. The insanity defense is a compromise between society and the law, meaning that society believes that criminals shouldn 't be punished if they are mentally incapable of controlling their conduct. There is a lot of controversy with the insanity defense, like questions such as what is the different if an insane person killed someone and if a sane person killed someone, the person is still dead. To which most have a point, it is still wrong but it all becomes an ethical game with killing someone who didn 't understand or comprehend what they did was wrong. The court defines it as there was only a crime committed if the person committed…
Insanity defense might be one of the most controversial of criminal defense strategies. It is the least used because only a few cases that are actually successful and when it is used, it tended to cause public debates. Many people become infuriated with the insanity defense because of cases like John Hinckley and Andrea Yates where they were found not guilty due to insanity, which fuel in the public’s misconception of the insanity defense. Insanity defense should not be abolished because they provide help to an accused whose suffering from mental illness, it does not have a deterrent effect on most crime, and it does not give the accused a free pass to commit a crime.…
One of the many issues that trouble the American Justice System today is that of the insanity defense. This defense has been brought in front of courts for years and has caused massive debate. The insanity defense plays a powerful role in our society which begs for justice. However some look upon it as a god sent, while other feel it is the enemy. ?The insanity defense is rooted in a basic principle of justice: that it is unfair to hold persons responsible for their actions when they don?t know, or cant control, what they are doing? (Worth 16), but is it true that people really don?t ?know? what they are doing; and if so should they still be punished for it? Many who share negative feelings towards the insanity defense believe that it is not a defense in the victims case but a defense to aid the perpetrator.…
The insanity defense is a topic that seems to garner a lot of public attention even though it is rarely used and is rarely successful. So why is this topic so popular considering its rarity? The answer could be a combination of highly publicized cases that use the insanity defense and the public’s misunderstanding of exactly what happens when someone is found not guilty by reason of insanity. The public has a common misconception that someone found not guilty by reason of insanity it just let go and not punished for his or her crimes, but in reality a person is almost always committed and often longer time than if the defendant had gone to prison…
The principles include if they do not understand the consequences of their conduct, can not tell if their conduct is wrong, and is not able to control their conduct (Gaines & Miller p. 81). To prove insanity there are a series of test that can be done, in order to classify someone as insane. Those test include include the M’Naghten rule, the Substantial- Capacity test, and the Irresistible-impulse test. Criminals can also be found guilty, but mentally ill. The insanity defense is rarely used, because it is hard to prove that someone is actually insane. It also can come down to the jury, to decide whether or not the defendant is actually mentally ill(Gaines & Miller p. 82). There have been cases where people use the insanity defense, because of their mental illness. Some cases that used the insanity defense and were successful were Eddie Routh, and Andrea Yates. The insanity defense did not work for Andrew Goldstein, Jonathan…
The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is a defense by excuse in a criminal case, 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. The…