The Insanity Defense Essay Example for Free

The Insanity Defense EssayThe Insanity Defense is perhaps genius of the most contr all oversial issues in the good world. It has be come on a favorite topic of critics for so long since issues regarding delirium defences possess to be very sensitive. This base will specifically discuss how the aberration disproof works, what its effects are and how and why it has become controversial to many people. Before we delve deeper into the topic, let us first clearly define what an madness defence reaction is. Insanity self-denial distinctively refers to a plea that suspects are not inculpative because they lacked the psychical dexterity to realize that they committed a scathe or appreciate why it was wrong (Martin, 1998). Today, most states define frenzy as a mental hurt that impedes a soulfulnesss baron to understand the wrongfulness of his or her act (the cognitive prong). A number of states also permit a defense when the disability impairs the soulfulnesss ability to control the act (the volitional prong) (Slobagin, 1998). However star defines the delirium defense, it has everlastingly remained controversial because it allows those who committed a monstrous abomination put up away from nefarious punishments. The defense of insanity is based on the premise that those who are inefficient to control their actions or appreciate the wrong-doing of their actions due to mental defect or illness should not be punished under criminal law (Dreisbach, 2006). The insanity defense is a legal test of criminal responsibility and it does not follow that it conforms to the medical definition of mental illness. Though controversies gift been thrown regarding the insanity defense, it is seldom used and rarely successful as well. Since the insanity defense is not intended to be a medical definition of a mental in subject matter, loads of controversies and criticisms have arisen over the legal criteria that courts should apply in de enclosureining wheth er a person should be acquitted on the basis of insanity. In terms of legalities, it is believed that courts have a treat to work on to assure the credibility of an insanity defense. But how did the insanity defense started? The guidelines for evaluating the criminal responsibility for defendants claiming to be insane were codified in the British courts in the case of Daniel MNaughten in 1843. A 1995 Frontline Article goes back to how the MNaughten rule startedMNaughten was a Scottish woodcutter who murdered the secretary to the extremum minister, Sir Robert Peel, in a botched attempt to assassinate the prime minister himself. MNaughten apparently believed that the prime minister was the architect of the myriad of personal and pecuniary misfortunes that had befallen him. During his trial, nine witnesses testified to the fact that he was insane, and the board acquitted him, finding him not guilty by reason of insanity. The queen was never pleased with the outcome, thusly she as ked the House of Lords to review the verdict with a panel of judges. The judges eventually reversed the verdict of the jury, and the formulation that emerged from their review states that a defendant should not be held responsible for his actions if he could not tell that his actions were wrong at the while he committed them. This became the basis of the law governing legal responsibility in cases of insanity in England. The American courts and legislatures embraced this rule for more(prenominal) than a hundred years with almost no modification, until the 20th century when much criticism was already thrown at the courts. During the 1950s, a growing dissatisfaction of the MNaughten test emerged. It was not just criticized in the legal destiny entirely in the psychiatric circle as well. According to one 1995 Frontline article issue, one of the major criticisms of the MNaughten rule is that in its focus on the cognitive ability to know remediate from wrong, it fails to take into c onsideration the issue of control. Psychiatrists agreed that it is indeed possible to understand that ones behavior is wrong, but still be unable to stop oneself. To address this, the MNaughter test was modified by whatever states with an irresistible impulse provision, which absolves a defendant who can distinguish right and wrong but is nonetheless unable to stop himself from committing an act he knows to be wrong. The Supreme Court has taken extra precautions in the proceedings in this area, with its few relevant decisions only indirectly addressing the proper formulation of the test for insanity. Further evidence that the Court may not find the insanity defense to be an essential aspect of criminal liability comes from its treatment of the burden of proof relating to the defense (Slobogin, 1998). The state may require the defendant to prove insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. According to Slobogin, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to fa shion proof of the crime with which the defendant is charged. In as far as law is concerned, does insanity defense really have a legitimate billet? Hooper and McLearen (2002) state thatOutside of assisting in sentencing, there are two places for mental disease in the legal system. The first is a defendants ability to understand the trial process. People who do not understand the nature of the charges or the functioning of the legal system are considered unfit for trial. More relevant to this article, if mental illness had a direct effect on a given criminal act, an individual can be found legally insane. The image of insanity has change over time but the basic notion of this is that there are individuals by virtue of mental conditions have no catch or control with their unlawful behaviors. However, the presence of a mental illness will not necessarily predict a successful insanity finding. subsequent on, the American Law Institute (ALI) promulgated a Model Penal Code that includ ed a two-pronged provision for insanity. The ALI states that an individual is not responsible for criminal hold if, at the time of such conduct as a result of a mental disease of defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law (Hooper and McLearen, 2002). The American Law Institute was a significant softening of the MNaughten standard. Frontline explains that instead of requiring a defendant to have no understanding whatsoever of the nature of his acts or the difference between right and wrong, the ALI standard requires merely the person lacks a substantial capacity to understand the right from wrong. The ALI generally expands the MNaughten rule to include an irresistible impulse component. The ALI standard also excludes defendants whose mental illness, defect or incapacity only manifest itself in criminal or antisocial conduct, thus addressing the conundrum of the seria l killer whose only mark of a mental illness is the killing of his victims. A popular example of a case in insanity defense is when John Hinckley Jr. rotating shaft the and then US President Ronald Reagan and other Presidential officers in 1981. Hinckley claimed that he was trying to impress the actress Jodie Foster, with whom he felt he was infatuated. He later set forth the incident in a letter to The New York Times as the greatest love offering in the history of the world At one time Miss Foster was a star and I was the insignificant fan. Now everything is changed. I am Napoleon and she is Josephine. I am Romeo and she is Juliet. A jury acquitted Hinckley of 13 assault, murder and weapon counts, finding him not guilty by reason of insanity. This triggered a public outcry against what many perceived to be a loophole in the justice system that allowed an obviously guilty man to escape punishment. Because of the acquittal, widespread calls for the abolishment, or at least the su bstantial revision of the insanity-plea laws ensued. ascribable to the incessant public outrage, the members of the Congress then responded to this by introducing 26 separate pieces of legislation designed to abolish or modify the insanity defense. All the in the altogether proposals were aimed at creating a stricter federal standard that would avoid acquittals like that of Hinckley. The Hinckley verdict introduced ways to make it more difficult to sustain an insanity plea. The insanity defense has always been a complex topic and a lot of academic and scholarly works have been devoted entirely to explain its nuances. Learnmore lays down some major points of interestDespite popular perceptions to the contrary, defendants rarely enter pleas of not guilty by reason of insanity. On the few occasions that the defendant does raise it, judges and jurors rarely support it.Neither the legal system nor psychiatrists can agree on a single meaning of insanity in the criminal law context. Vari ous definitions have been employed, making the insanity defense more controversial to people.Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are not automatically set free. They are usually confined to a mental institution, and not released until their sanity is established. These defendants can spend more time in a mental institution than they would have spent in prison had they been convicted.An insanity defense popularly rests on the testimony of a psychiatrist, who testifies for the defendant after examining him and his past history, and the facts of the case. Courts appoint psychiatrists at government expense to assist poor defendants who cannot afford to hire their own psychiatrists.There is no wonder that the insanity defense has held a lot of controversies. With its very perplex nature, there are always rooms for loopholes. For instance, how can one genuinely measure the authenticity of the guilty by reason of insanity plea? If one pleads that he is insane at the time of trial, how can one be sure that his testimonies are slick enough to free him from guilt or give a lighter verdict? Could an insanity defense be the perfect step to take to get away from a serious crime that has been committed? Why cannot we have a unified definition of insanity? Why do requirements vary in a number of states? These and a lot more questions with regard to insanity defense are still left unanswered.Currently, the requirements for insanity vary by state. The typical standards require that a person be unable to differentiate between right and wrong at the time of the crime. The inability to appreciate the wrongfulness of conduct must be the direct result of a mental disease or defect (Hooper and McLearen, 2002). This requirement actually leaves me to ponder on a indisputable things. If the person is legally insane at the time of the crime, how can the legal system be assured of a legally insane persons testimonies if the person has a mental disease or defect? Can the legal system assure the people that the insanity defense was not widely misused?Due to the controversies being linked to insanity defense, there have been wide attempts to eliminate the loopholes of the system and thereby force mentally ill individuals into prison. round state decisions have noted that criminal intent is an absolute necessary part of any crime (Hooper and McLearen, 2002). So it is just right that the laws should be more focused on the guilty mind. Under these laws, a person must, as a result of a mental illness, lack the ability to willingly or knowingly commit and act. This looks more at criminal intent rather than psychiatric diagnoses, therefore claiming an end to criminals getting off free. There have been states who have omitted the insanity defense entirely, instead allowing mental state to be raised only as a mitigating factor.But insanity defenses are not always successful. Only a handful of insanity defense cases have won acquittal. Though the percentage of winning an insanity defense is low, it is still likely to hold controversies. Critics have argued that some defendants misuse it, effectively faking insanity to acquittals or less austere convictions (Martin, 1998). Oftentimes, trials involving insanity defense get the most attention because the crimes involved in such cases are extremely bizarre.The standard for insanity defense gets periodic reviews especially after a verdict that the public finds shocking. Laws have been passed to have stricter standards for insanity defenses. Instead of requiring prosecutors to prove a defendants sanity, defense attorneys now carry the burden of persuading a judge or a jury of the invitees insanity (Martin, 1998). Martin further explains that some states have also adopted a tougher and stricter release system. Such changes in Connecticut doubled the average term acquitted defendants spend committed in institutions. This system unsurprisingly caused the number of insanity pleas to drop.With stricter standards and stricter release systems, insanity pleas have seriously dropped. Can this be considered a colligation or a mere manifestation that previous insanity pleas were actually just faked? If because of stricter standards and tougher release systems a number of insanity pleas dropped, cannot all states impose like standards and systems? If this will answer the endless controversies that are being associated with insanity defenses, then probably it is already high time that states take a look at their insanity defenses standards and make abrupt revisions. A person who has made criminal acts should not just easily escape by means of an insanity defense. The person just leaves room for the people to doubt the system and make outrageous cries to give enough justice to the victim of the so-called insane person.The insanity defense for me is just an available excuse for an accused person to be absolved from his or her criminal responsibility for his or her conduct. The r ules for insanity defense had been made conciliative depending on the weight of the situation and the reaction f the public. For an insanity defense to be made an excuse in having been committed a serious crime is a total ridicule for me. For if one lacks the capacity to know what is right from wrong, then how can a person actually know if he is actually insane? How can he be so sure that he was insane at the time that the crime was committed?Had there been any increase in insanity defense law? The introduction of the guilty but mentally ill verdict in many states is considered the biggest development in the insanity defense law. Frontline explains that a defendant who receives a guilty but mentally ill verdict is still considered legally guilty of the crime in question, but since the defendant is mentally ill, the defendant is entitled to receive mental health treatment while institutionalized. If symptoms remit, however, the defendant is required to serve out the remainder of hi s decry in a regular correctional facility, unlike a defendant who was acquitted by reason of insanity, who must be released if it is determined he is no longer dangerous to himself or others.In cases of an insanity defense, it is just right and proper that both(prenominal) the rights of the victim and the defendant who pleads to be insane must be protected. However one puts it, a crime has still been done regardless of ones mental state. If indeed proven that the defendant is mentally faulty or ill at the time of the crime, then proper steps must be taken into account. The verdict may be less severe that what a sane person might get, but proper medications for the defendant must be seriously followed before he gets more destructive to others and to himself.At this point, I am asking myself, why are there insanity pleas? Perhaps, it is the real situation. Perhaps the defendant is really not in a normal mental state at the time the crime happened. But how could the defendant actua lly defend himself given his mental incapacity to know what is right or wrong? And perhaps, just maybe, if there are no other good defenses to get a person out of a seriously committed crime, then insanity pleads might just be the solution. Perhaps it is making some sense.Insanity pleads have lowered down in number after stricter standards and systems. With both parties that should be considered for this law, emotions and judgmental instincts of people should not really get in the way. This is one serious problem that needs to be addressed and a adjectival and logical system must take place to protect the rights of all parties involved. Progresses have been done and I certainly hope that there will come a time that the insanity defense would no longer hold controversies because justice has been served both for the victim and the defendant.REFERENCESDreisbach, Daniel L. Criminal Law. Microsoft Encarta 2006 DVD. Redmond, WA Microsoft Corporation, 2005.Insanity as a criminal defense. Retrieved celestial latitude 9, 2007, from http//www.theblanchlawfirm.com/NewsDetails-36/Insanity+as+a+Criminal+ Defense.html?newsid=38A crime of insanity. Retrieved December 9, 2007, from http//www.pbs.org/wgbh/ Pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/history.htmlmnSlobogin, C. (1998). Insanity defense. Thomson Gale. Retrieved December 9, 2007, from http//www.answers.com./topic/insanity-defense?cat=biz-finHooper, J., and McLearen, A. (2002, April). Does the insanity defense have a legitimate role? electronic version. The Psychiatric times, 19 (4). Retrieved December 9, 2007, from http//www.psychiatrictimes.cm/p020452.htmlMartin, J. (1998, February 2007). The insanity defense a approximate look electronic version. Washingto Post. Retrieved December 9, 2007 from http//www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-srv/local/longerm/aron/qa227.htm