In Cold Blood Insanity Defense

Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) is a form of insanity defense that allows for an individual to not be found guilty of a crime due to a mental defect or disease that results in a lack of mens rea, or the capability to intentionally commit a crime. However, simply having a mental illness or defect does not guarantee that an offender will be found NGRI. Not only would a defendant have to have a major or severe mental illness or disease, but the defendant would have to prove that their condition impaired them so greatly as to not have any control over their behavior or any concept that they had done anything wrong at the time of the offense. Although Bob undoubtedly had a diminished capacity for logic and reason in this case, the example as given does not provide enough detail to determine the nature of Bob’s personality or his potential motives in committing this crime. Nevertheless, there is one major flaw to Bob’s insanity defense: he tried to hide the crime.

The defendant does not meet the standard for legal insanity in Delaware, using the American Legal Institute Test. Although, Howard the defendant, had a mental disorder Bipolar 2, it did not cause impairment at the time of the sexual assault. Mood disorders are relevant to volitional tests, but not to cognitive tests. Since Delaware is under ALI, it has to prove that both the cognitive and volitional prong was passed. Howard sexually assaulted, his ex-coworker out of his own control and sane mindset.

The McNaughton rule was used, and it is “the ancient British importation which contends that if the accused knew the nature of his act, and knew it was wrong, then he is mentally competent and responsible for his actions” (Capote, 169-170). The opposition, those on the state’s side, supported its use as they believed it would prevent a “temporary insanity” (Capote, 169) ruling. It was upheld, largely as it was the custom in Kansas at that time. However, the doctor who came to evaluate Dick and Perry believes that Dick is most likely healthy, but that Perry was most likely mentally ill, “his present personality structure is very nearly that of a paranoid schizophrenic reaction,” (Capote, 189). Dr. Jones had a colleague of his evaluate Perry, and they both agree that Perry seems to be of a sort of murderer that is capable of logical thought, but is not always capable of logical action.

Based on the legal definitions and description of court cases in relation to those definitions, Ana’s case can correlate with the insanity defense due to her reaction to the crime. As stated previously, while asleep in the park a male attempted to wake the client up causing her to go into a rage yelling “ Get off of me!” as she stabs this individual. After committing the crime Ana then went to into a state of sobbing, as well as being easy to calm down. Ana was also able to cooperate during her arrest, but she did not want to discuss what had occurred.

The neglect, interest in animal corpses, and alcoholism Jefferey experienced all correlates to his killings. In his trial, Jefferey Dahmer plead insanity. Insanity is represented by “The Devil Made Me Do It” defense, which argues the defendant does not deny the actual crime but denies that it was done with criminal intent. For example, Dahmer could not differentiate between right and wrong pertaining to murder. Dahmer’s corrupt childhood was used as evidence to demonstrate how neglect and alcohol controlled his decision

There is also an inclination to believe that if he had not suffered from this state, then the offence would not have been committed, specially not in the barbaric way it was done. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the accused willfully preformed the act, nor that the mens rea and the actus reus coincided while he was not in a psychotic state. (Roach, 113) Related to this finding is another element that supports the verdict of the Honorable Judge, which is the Principle of Fundamental Justice that states that no one should be “punished for morally involuntary actions.” (Roach, 82) A person who successfully raises the mental disorder defence is considered to be morally innocent of the act because they were not acting freely, in this case, free from psychotic ideations.

In the trial of Mr. Smith, there is no question of whether or not he committed the gruesome murder of Mr. Johnson; the question is in the sanity of Mr. Smith at the time the murder was committed. You may be thinking, “Why on Earth would you think Mr. Smith was sane? He killed a man because his eye was creepy!” While Mr. Smith did kill someone for what seems like an absurd reason, this does not make him insane. The legal definition of insanity is “a mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot manage his/her own affairs, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior....

Drunk mom, dad leaving at such a young age, some of his siblings killing themselves and on top of all that getting abused a lot by his mom and the nuns that hit him when he was in catholic school. Well who was this this very ungood, bad childhood and different and that is Perry Smith. My client’s case is about 2 men Perry & Dick and they're doing is very shocking,that was Perry has killed a family of 4 the Clutter family & each were shot with a gun besides that Mr.Clutter had his throat slit. Previously,Dick was gonna kill them all but something suddenly happened and that was in Perry’s mind. They are not guilty at all but the fact that they will be charged with insanity because yes there has been something going on in Perry’s mind like something

Justice Tindall, whom was present at the M’Naughten trial when the insanity plea became a legal defense, breaks these rules into 3 statements. “Every person is presumed sane unless the contrary can be proven otherwise” (Allnut, et al. 293), which in this case it cannot. “A person suffering a ‘partial delusion’ should be dealt with as if the circumstances of the delusion was real” (Allnut, et al. 293). If Minnie was suffering from some sort of delusions, she would have used that as an excuse once Mr. Hale found her or would’ve had some crazy story on what happened. She got straight to the point.

The M'Naghten Rule states that the only proof of insanity is if a person is unable to distinguish between right and wrong at the time they commit a crime. Under this law, many mental insane people are classified as sane because they show no physical prominent issues. (Capote, Conversations 129-130)The M'Naghten rule plays a giant role in the novel In Cold Blood. A doctor is put on the stand during the trial of Dick and Perry to testify regarding their mental illnesses. The novel states, " It was hopeless because though Dr.Jones agreed to elaborate, the prosecution was entitled to object -- and did, citing the fact that Kansas law allowed nothing more than a yes or no reply to that pertinent

In In Cold Blood, the issue over the death penalty is prominent. Did Perry and Dick deserve to die? Should the severity of one’s crime determine one’s fate? Although Truman Capote writes the novel in a straightforward, “from a distance” way, he conveys, through his characters, theme, and plot development, that the death penalty is an issue that should be looked at from all sides and that the legal system itself is the real issue at hand, and that the death penalty is used as a means to suppress the distress and indignation of the citizens surrounding the case, instead of suppressing the victim himself.

Kyle Figueroa Mr. Paneralla March 19, 2023 Class 6 Honors English Perry Smith Is Innocent Due to Perry Smith's childhood in a harmful environment, where he was subjected to abuse and negative influences, it would be unjust to sentence him to death. Perry has a medical reason for his insanity, it is called schizophrenia. Perry has never had a true family, but he does get family-like people in his life like Dick. When he meets someone who treats him the way he wants to be treated he gets attached to them.

Although, just because they have a mental illness, doesn't mean that's the reason they did their crime. I believe the insanity defense could have been the best outcome for the defendant, because they would have been treated for their mental

Throughout human history, humans have been known to execute gruesome acts. Whether these acts are small and insignificant or massive and change history, humans are capable of performing horrific plots against one another. To make matters worse, most of the people who commit these terrible crimes are people who are entirely in a clear state of mind. Nevertheless, there are some cases in which the line between sanity and mental instability blurs. For example, there is an ongoing debate regarding the mental health of the main character in William Faulkner’s story “A Rose for Emily.”

All the narrator’s actions, from the abuse to the murders, are some effects of his alcoholism and insanity. A sane person clearly would not carry out these heinous acts and behave the way the narrator did after committing