Insanity Defense Reform Essay

Tuan Taruselli-Stormes Professor Monica Swaner English 102 February 20, 2017 A Rhetorical Analysis of “State of Oregon v. Kipland Philip Kinkel” October 16, 2002, P.J. Haselton filed court documents from the case of Kipland Philip Kinkel. This was a trial based on the 111 years and 8 months’ life term sentence Kinkel had received form an earlier trial for four counts of murder and 26 counts of attempted murder. Through this trial, they recapped the original trial, and deliberated over the evidence presented by Mr. Kinkel’s lawyers. Judge Haselton entertained the courts with their premises for grounds of inhumane violations of article I, section 15, and Article I, section 16, of the Oregon State Constitution.

At the 2002 trial, Yates pleaded not guilty, by using the insanity defense. The insanity defense argues that an individual should not be found guilty of a crime if they have a persistent psychiatric disease at the time the crime was committed. It was proved that Yates could tell right from wrong, so she did not meet the definition of the insanity in Texas (Walsh). The jury deliberated for almost four hours, and finally found Yates guilty. The jury rejected her insanity defense, and Yates was sentenced to life in prison.

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.

This phase caused three different psychiatrists to come in and testify on Brom’s mental state. The testimonies would be held up against the M'Naghten Rule. The 140 year old standard which holds that a criminal defendant can’t be held responsible for a crime if he did not know the nature of his act or that it was morally wrong. There was a huge argument in this case over whether or not David Brom was mentally insane. Seven out of the eight health professionals who evaluated David found him to be mentally competent.

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

Texas holds the title for the state with most executions in the United States gaining heavy scrutiny for the use of death penalty. Many are concerned that the death penalty is in direct violation of the 8th amendment of the constitution which forbids the act of cruel and unusual punishment as well as being wrong on a moral level. This becomes a hot button issue when mental illness comes into play as 30% of Texas's incarcerated inmates, have been clients of the state’s mental health system (“Texas Death Penalty”). Andre Lee Thomas is one of those inmates, sentenced to death, but also deemed mentally unstable.

In refers to class discussion, as a result of the M’Nagthen case, the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 (IDRA) is only use when the defendant does not understand the nature of the crime committed. Therefore, although neurosis or personality disorders qualify as a mental disease according to the DSM-5; the law has eliminated these types of disorders from being utilized in courts as a form of defense. The law has also excluded the irresistible impulse or inabilities to comply with the rules as a means of defense in the federal

Arguing for insanity, Darrow’s imagery reopens deep scars in the jury as he passionately recalls the war between Americans, a war so devastating, so bloody, so amoral, that it wounds the Leopold and Loeb boys beyond repair – beyond the point of human sympathy, a sympathy robbed of them by the culture they are raised in – the culture that disregards the value of human life. Darrow’s use of exaggeration and discussion of an institutional system of warmongering enforces his pathos upon the jury, as he reinterprets Leopold and Loeb’s senseless killing as an act of insanity. Utilizing the war as a cause for madness, Darrow discusses how during this ongoing atrocity, “we were fed on flesh and drank blood” (Darrow). Darrow exaggerates these war crimes so as to further his point that not only did the Leopold and Loeb boys witness these acts, but are warped by them to the point of insanity, a breaking point caused not by their own fault, but by society-at-large as Darrow transfers this guilt on to the jury. The insanity plea works two-fold as it not only eliminates the boys’ responsibility for their actions, but also lays blame on the entire jury, preventing them from indicting the boys without indicting themselves also.

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

When it comes to the case Miller V. State, I believe that trial court refused to give the jury instructions regarding the insanity defense, which the defendant wished to have comunicated, because they wanted the jury to be able to decide imoartially. Miller was examined by three medical experts and they concluded that Miller satisfied the M'naughten insanity test when he stabbed Goring. The district court had instructed the jury to determine whether Miller was actually legally insane when he stabbed Goring. They wanted the jury to find proof of insanity at that time, and to also consider Miller's mental condition "before and after the killing to throw light on what Miller's mental condition was at the time of the killing" (Schmalleger

In “The Brain on Trial”, David Eagleman claims that the justice system needs to change its sentencing policies due to the discoveries of neurobiological diseases that cause their sufferers to behave in socially unacceptable ways and/or commit crimes. Eagleman uses a variety of rhetorical strategies to present his viewpoint. The most important one is his appeal to logic. By using mostly examples, along with direct address to the readers, Eagleman is able to argue that the legal system has to modify its sentencing policies to take into account the advances made in neuroscience due to the increase in the amount of accused and/or convicted people who have been found to have harbored some kind of brain disease or damage. Eagleman

The court dismisses the plea quickly because “the justice system ignores psychosocial complexities and histories in favor of black and white definitions of right and wrong” (Myers). The justice system in this time very rarely accepted pleas of insanity or mental illness. Capote wrote that “after an hour’s conversation with the defendants, the doctor rule[d] out that neither man

BOOM! To the front of the head. In a blink of an eye, she was gone. Betty Williams was a young Christian girl, but she also liked getting people’s attention by doing crazy things. Betty was well known for being in different plays.

Existing Law I. The M’Naghten The existing law regarding the insanity plea follows what are known as the ‘M’Naghten Rules’. These rules, which were created in 1843, these rules are a test to ascertain whether or not the offender is insane. This test comprises three key components and are as follows; 1) Is the person suffering from a “disease of the mind”?

Conclusion In conclusion, insanity should be regarded as a mental condition that describes the lack of some mental capacity, rather than an avenue to be exploited to escape responsibility or punishment. Undoubtedly, the insanity defense is a multipart kind of case in proving that a person does not understand the nature of the unlawful act he/she was involved. It has developed considerably from being a mitigating factor in criminal cases to being a defense through the development of various tests adopted in different cases. The case requires that the accused person was suffering from mental illness during the commission of the crime and that the individual does not understand the nature of the offense.