History Of The Insanity Defense

The next case was the M’Naghten. This case is what started the revolutionary insanity theory. The not guilty by reason of insanity was adopted by the New England first and then the United States. The test consisted of the cognitive test and the volitional test.

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....

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

Insanity is an illness an individual cannot overcome and will make decisions without thinking. Lacking the further knowledge of a criminal's mental state does not endorse the fate of acquiring the death

This article talked a great deal about how the rules and procedures when it comes to the insanity defense are inconsistent and unclear. United States v. Hinckley showed the public how inconsistent and unclear the criminal procedures are. The article provided a statement from a juror involved in the Hinckley case. The gist of the statement was that even the experts used in the trial could not determine the defendant’s sanity, which made it even harder for the jurors to determine as well.

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

Some say mental illness is an invisible disease, one that begins to eat someone from the inside out. Being mentally ill comes in many different forms: from basic depression and anxiety, to schizophrenia and depersonalization. These disorders can make a person feel as though they are losing control over what they are doing, as well as losing sight on what makes them normal. Mental illness can make a person do things that a normal person would not do, simple because of a person 's moral and ethical values. Sometimes, however, a person who is mentally ill commits crimes that are unforgivable.

Mental health courts handle people with mental illness who have been charged of a crime. Mental health court is defined as “a specialized court docket for certain defendants with mental illnesses” where the individual’s mental health is first evaluated (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2008, p.4). Then, judicial staff and mental health professionals decide a treatment plan for the person (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2008). Mental health court is an acceptable system because it allows people with mental illnesses to be treated differently than in a traditional court system.

Within America, four states have banned the use of the insanity defense. It is misused to escape prison and extends the trial due to how difficult it is to prove. The insanity defense states that the person who has committed the crime was or is unable to differentiate between right or wrong. It is believed that the mentally ill cannot be deterred by punishment and that it will protect society if they are treated rather than imprisoned. Many people are suspicious that the insanity defense is easily abused and manipulated by criminals and their lawyers.

In Holmes’s subsequent trial, he pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. Prosecutors believed he was simply trying to escape the death penalty by pleading insanity, while a neuropsychologist who ran tests on Holmes said that there were no signs of him faking his supposed insanity that prevented him knowing right from wrong during his

The Andrea Yates Case: The Insanity Defense On June 20, 2001, in Houston, Texas, Andrea Pia Yates was charged with the murder of her five children, which she drowned in the bathtub one at a time, and was found not guilty by reason of insanity under the Texas Law Insanity Defense. The legislative history of the Texas Law Insanity Defense begins with the British test for right and wrong, known as the M’Naghten, being adopted in the majority of American states. The M’Naghten test for right and wrong required a mental disease that kept the defendant from controlling their actions and that cognitive impairment is the cause for the defective reasoning of what is right and what is wrong. Beginning in 1973, Texas adopted the American Law Institute’s

While any mental or medical condition could theoretically serve as

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.

1. Concepts learned or new to understanding and their importance I found the concept of insanity very interesting and further more I was unware that insanity actually had three different legal meanings even though I have heard of each of these meanings. These three separate meanings are; not guilty by reason of insanity, competence to stand trial and involuntary commitment. Our text revels that not guilty by reason of insanity is “a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at that time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease of defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law “(Lahey, 2012). With competence to stand trial, is a determination of whether the individual has the ability to understand what and the reason why they are on trial.

Insanity alludes to the perspective a man is in at the time an offense was conferred. At the point when an individual is found not liable by reason of Insanity, a judge or jury have verified that he or she was so rationally scattered at the time of the wrongdoing that the individual cannot be considered dependable. This was the situation for Andrea Yates, in her second trial (Bartol and Bartol, 2012). The overall population evidently trusts that insanity pleas are utilized effectively to maintain a strategic distance from discipline as a part of an immense rate of cases (indeed, it is utilized as a part of under 1% of cases, and of those, it comes up short 74% of the time) (Bartol and Bartol, 2012).