Not Guilty: The 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.

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.

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.

The insanity defence is one of the most controversial topics in the legal system, used by many criminal defendants as an excuse for their unlawful activities. In fact, the Canadian legal system has experienced this in the case of Valentine Shortis, an Irish Immigrant who was convicted of killing two men, injuring one and attempted murder on March 1, 1895. Charged with murder and sentenced to death, Valentine’s Lawyer St. Pierre argued that he suffered from insanity, such as his inability to distinguish right from wrong. There was evidence from Shortis's friends, family, and neighbours who claimed that Shortis was arrogant and mischievous person. According to Friedland, the crown (Macmaster) stated that “he did many eccentric, rash and even

Dr. Mark Nolan, Senior Lecturer at ANU College of Law, says that the NGRI plea “enables defendants to avoid criminal liability and standard criminal punishment” (Nolan 8). The main disagreement with America is the focus whether if the “guilty defendant” pursues to misuse the “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” as an alternative to imprisonment or if the criminally accused was at the time of committing the crime “clinically insane” and in need psychotherapy. Therefore, during this discussion of opposing viewpoints concerning the insanity defense being misused or ethical are going to be

(Busby, 2022). This compared with the Irresistible Impulse Test, which states “the defendant will be found not guilty by reason of insanity if they can show that as a result of mental disease or defect, they could not resist the impulse to commit the crime of which they are accused, due to an inability to control their actions”

I agree that the insanity defense is morally right. There are defects of the system. However, the criminal justice system’s foundation is made up of moral integrity. As a society we have decided to excuse those who lack the moral capabilities to know right from wrong. The murkiness of the system should not automatically equate to the abolishment of the defense.

In countries which are legislatively and judicially fair and progressive, there exists a provision or series or provisions - which in Canada is known as the Not Criminally Response Due to Mental Disorder (NCRMD/NCR) designation - that aims to protect those who suffer from mental illness from the punishments and penalties endured in the criminal court system. The NCR defense in particular is a piece of legislation in the Canadian Criminal Code, which essentially states that a person is deemed Not Criminally Responsible of whatever offence they had committed on account that the person was suffering from a mental disorder or was declared legally insane at the time of the incident and was unable to appreciate their actions or that what they did

In 1999, a mental health court was established to therapeutically manage mentally ill people accused of a crime (King County TV, 2010). Unlike a conventional court system, a behavioral health court treats a mentally ill individual with more respect and understanding. According to King County TV (2010), mentally ill clients can propose to be placed in a mental health court system because it will allow them to have a chance to recover. However, when the client is not compliant with the plan of care given to them, he or she could be placed in jail if there is a possibility the

Holmes processed by declaring guilty for reason of insanity and the judge accepts. Defendant’s Charges The following month on August 26, 2015. A judge in Colorado sentences Holmes to twelve

A case can be changed due to the call of the insanity plea. Nevertheless, This may cause a possible difference to the charge of the defence. In a court case dealing with murder such as the issue with the Clutter family, the Insanity plea was brought into thought to test if Perry and Dick were mentally stable during that time. By definition, the insanity plea is an argument stating the defense was not responsible for their actions due to a psychiatric disease at the time of the act, consequently, making him/her unaware of the occurring actions moreover the later consequences. In the book, In Cold Blood by Truman Capote, the main characters Perry and Dick killed the Clutter family committing the crime of the century.

During my true crime podcast era, I came across Andrea Yates. Yates was a mother who killed her five young children by drowning them in a bathtub. While listening to this case, it was revealed that the insanity plea, or also known as the insanity defense, was used. It got me thinking about how the plea works and how people would allow this outcome over a jail sentence. The insanity plea is a tough topic to tackle in the world of criminal law.

Intro: “It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane” (PHILIP K. DICK, Valis). In present day America laws have been placed that prevent people who are “insane” to be guilty of the crimes they commit. In short, insanity is the state of being seriously mentally ill relating to madness. This is presented in the book Medea written by Euripides through her point of view. In Medea, a surge of insanity purges her after she is betrayed by her husband Jason causing many cruel and harsh actions to follow from her.

When it comes to insanity there is always one misconception. That misconception is that people automatically assume that they mean that person is deranged in the mind. Which is also presumed as a bad thing. Actually to be insane is quite human in nature. Insanity is not a bad thing.