Arguments Against Insanity Defense
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.
…show more content…
?In courts the insanity defense has been used as a loophole for criminals to jump through, and escape a deserved punishment.?
States law student Cedrick Burrows. Crimes in our society are believed to not go unpunished, and with the introduction of the insanity defense into our courts criminals are beginning to dodge such promised justice. What about the families of the victims who have been raped, murdered, or beaten; what justice are they served if their attacker is let to walk free or spend time in a mental institution? Many others who are for the insanity defense believe it is unfair to punish a person when they are not aware of the crime they have committed. They believe that a person who wasn?t aware of the crime or tuned in to what is right or wrong can not be placed in the same category of those who knowingly kill, rape, or beat innocent
people.
One case in which the inconsistency of the insanity defense is apparent is in that of the assassinator of former president James Garfield. Charles Julius Guiteau, after being caught and detained by a police officer after the murder, plainly commented that he had shot the president and excepted that he would go to jail as a result. However, when It came down to the trial, Guiteau?s attorney pushed for the ?insanity dodge. Even though M?Naghten Rules(which were used to define a person?s sanity) stated that ?the person was deemed sane if, at the time of the commission of the crime, the accused person knew that what he or she was doing was a crime, and was aware of the practical and legal consequences of his or her actions.?, the plea still led neurologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, and criminologists to expressed obvious disagreement to weather or not Guiteau was insane.
Who exactly is certified to asses weather a not a person was mentally competent at the time a crime was committed. The only people who were present were the victim and the perpetrator, so the courts are forced to bring in a third party; The psychiatrist. Even though psychiatry is looked upon as a science, it is not recognized as an exact science. There is no specific rules in which one has to follow, or descriptions one has to fit to be found guilty. And if the science itself it not exact then how can one believe the verdict of a persons mental sanity. It is only an opinion, expert opinion or not, it is still just an opinion. And with the use of theses opinions what happens when two or more psychiatrist?s findings clash. It causes unnecessary confusion in the court room and in the jury?s decision.
It is also debated that the insanity defense helps the mentally ill find help in hospitals, and receive the care that they need. But after they have received such care, and are found sane then what happens? Are they allowed to roam the streets of our cities in the towns of our families, and lead a normal life when their crime could have torn apart the lives of another family just down he block? In some cases that is true. Is it fair that a person could suffer a horrendous crime, and the committer walk free? No it is not, and it is not how our justice system is designed to work. The courts of the United States are in session to give victims JUSTICE, and by letting criminal roam free there is no justice served what so ever.
The insanity defense continues to confuse and disrupt the system of our courts to this very day. The debate whether it is right or wrong is a heated topic of discussion between professionals in all categories. However, I believe the conclusion is quite obvious, insane or not a person who has committed a crime that has hurt another human being needs to be placed behind bars. It is too much of a guessing game to determine a persons sanity. If a person has committed such a horrible crime then they should not be permitted to join the rest of society. They should be safely placed behind bars.
?In courts the insanity defense has been used as a loophole for criminals to jump through, and escape a deserved punishment.?
States law student Cedrick Burrows. Crimes in our society are believed to not go unpunished, and with the introduction of the insanity defense into our courts criminals are beginning to dodge such promised justice. What about the families of the victims who have been raped, murdered, or beaten; what justice are they served if their attacker is let to walk free or spend time in a mental institution? Many others who are for the insanity defense believe it is unfair to punish a person when they are not aware of the crime they have committed. They believe that a person who wasn?t aware of the crime or tuned in to what is right or wrong can not be placed in the same category of those who knowingly kill, rape, or beat innocent
people.
One case in which the inconsistency of the insanity defense is apparent is in that of the assassinator of former president James Garfield. Charles Julius Guiteau, after being caught and detained by a police officer after the murder, plainly commented that he had shot the president and excepted that he would go to jail as a result. However, when It came down to the trial, Guiteau?s attorney pushed for the ?insanity dodge. Even though M?Naghten Rules(which were used to define a person?s sanity) stated that ?the person was deemed sane if, at the time of the commission of the crime, the accused person knew that what he or she was doing was a crime, and was aware of the practical and legal consequences of his or her actions.?, the plea still led neurologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, and criminologists to expressed obvious disagreement to weather or not Guiteau was insane.
Who exactly is certified to asses weather a not a person was mentally competent at the time a crime was committed. The only people who were present were the victim and the perpetrator, so the courts are forced to bring in a third party; The psychiatrist. Even though psychiatry is looked upon as a science, it is not recognized as an exact science. There is no specific rules in which one has to follow, or descriptions one has to fit to be found guilty. And if the science itself it not exact then how can one believe the verdict of a persons mental sanity. It is only an opinion, expert opinion or not, it is still just an opinion. And with the use of theses opinions what happens when two or more psychiatrist?s findings clash. It causes unnecessary confusion in the court room and in the jury?s decision.
It is also debated that the insanity defense helps the mentally ill find help in hospitals, and receive the care that they need. But after they have received such care, and are found sane then what happens? Are they allowed to roam the streets of our cities in the towns of our families, and lead a normal life when their crime could have torn apart the lives of another family just down he block? In some cases that is true. Is it fair that a person could suffer a horrendous crime, and the committer walk free? No it is not, and it is not how our justice system is designed to work. The courts of the United States are in session to give victims JUSTICE, and by letting criminal roam free there is no justice served what so ever.
The insanity defense continues to confuse and disrupt the system of our courts to this very day. The debate whether it is right or wrong is a heated topic of discussion between professionals in all categories. However, I believe the conclusion is quite obvious, insane or not a person who has committed a crime that has hurt another human being needs to be placed behind bars. It is too much of a guessing game to determine a persons sanity. If a person has committed such a horrible crime then they should not be permitted to join the rest of society. They should be safely placed behind bars.