Not Guilty: The Insanity Defense
Insanity Plea
2014-08-19
The insanity defense is a topic that seems to garner a lot of attention even though it is rarely used and only a few cases that invoke are actually successful. A combination of highly publicized cases that use it and the public’s misunderstanding of exactly what happens when someone is found “not guilty by reason of insanity”. It is because of cases like John Hinckley and Andrea Yates where the defendants are found not guilty by reason of insanity coupled with the public’s misunderstanding that causes the public to become so outraged with the insanity defense. The public has this common misconception that someone found not guilty by reason of insanity is just let go and is not punished for his or …show more content…
Having a mental illness alone isn 't usually enough The mental illness has to be so severe that the defendant is unaware that his or her actions are wrong or is uncontrollably compelled to commit a criminal act. Typically, people who can legitimately claim insanity have a history of severe mental illness, although occasionally someone commits a crime during their first psychotic break. Even when the defendant 's mental illness is obvious and acute, the insanity defense may not work. A more common verdict in Michigan is guilty but mentally ill, which doesn 't impact the sentence but could affect the services that the defendant receives in the criminal-justice system. (Borum and Fulero, 1999)
There are many criticisms of the insanity defense, and people have conveyed their displeasure at this type of defense. The four main complaints are that the public believes that many offenders attempt to use this plea, and that susceptible juries are acquitting these defendants often. The other two complaints are that the offenders are just released back into society way to soon, and that all insane people are excessively dangerous. The reality of the situation is far different from what public opinion warrants. (Greene et al, …show more content…
With more stringent regulations and diagnoses needing to be proven defenses often use this as a last option in cases. Ultimately, only a jury can decide the issue of insanity, this alone is one of the most frustrating part about the insanity defense. In other words, people who have no training in the subject, rarely come into contact with the mentally ill and have a minimal understanding of the issues involved, make decisions and long-lasting judgments that are frequently based on other peoples testimonies or opinions. The wrong verdict and a murder may go for a hospital visit rather than prison. It is considered shaky ground and rightfully
2014-08-19
The insanity defense is a topic that seems to garner a lot of attention even though it is rarely used and only a few cases that invoke are actually successful. A combination of highly publicized cases that use it and the public’s misunderstanding of exactly what happens when someone is found “not guilty by reason of insanity”. It is because of cases like John Hinckley and Andrea Yates where the defendants are found not guilty by reason of insanity coupled with the public’s misunderstanding that causes the public to become so outraged with the insanity defense. The public has this common misconception that someone found not guilty by reason of insanity is just let go and is not punished for his or …show more content…
Having a mental illness alone isn 't usually enough The mental illness has to be so severe that the defendant is unaware that his or her actions are wrong or is uncontrollably compelled to commit a criminal act. Typically, people who can legitimately claim insanity have a history of severe mental illness, although occasionally someone commits a crime during their first psychotic break. Even when the defendant 's mental illness is obvious and acute, the insanity defense may not work. A more common verdict in Michigan is guilty but mentally ill, which doesn 't impact the sentence but could affect the services that the defendant receives in the criminal-justice system. (Borum and Fulero, 1999)
There are many criticisms of the insanity defense, and people have conveyed their displeasure at this type of defense. The four main complaints are that the public believes that many offenders attempt to use this plea, and that susceptible juries are acquitting these defendants often. The other two complaints are that the offenders are just released back into society way to soon, and that all insane people are excessively dangerous. The reality of the situation is far different from what public opinion warrants. (Greene et al, …show more content…
With more stringent regulations and diagnoses needing to be proven defenses often use this as a last option in cases. Ultimately, only a jury can decide the issue of insanity, this alone is one of the most frustrating part about the insanity defense. In other words, people who have no training in the subject, rarely come into contact with the mentally ill and have a minimal understanding of the issues involved, make decisions and long-lasting judgments that are frequently based on other peoples testimonies or opinions. The wrong verdict and a murder may go for a hospital visit rather than prison. It is considered shaky ground and rightfully