Essays on Insanity Defense

Q. 1: The Defendant’s Competence to Stand Trial

No, the defense team feels that the defendant is not competent to stand trial. This is because Mr. Stu Dents must have been suffering from delusions at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. From the evidence obtained in the Journal entries containing references to aliens, God, and the end of the world, it is argued on the defendant’s behalf that he was suffering from some mental defect which made him have a deluded feeling that killing was a way of “fulfilling his destiny.” Moreover, the defendant’s combative, irrational, and agitated behavior at the time ...

The “Son of Sam” Case

The Nature and Type of Defenses Used The main type of defense that was used in this case is the insanity defense. The insanity defense is a common-law excusatory defense under which a defendant in a criminal case asks the court to excuse them from criminal responsibility for their conduct. According to Math, Kumar, and Moirangthem (2015), the insanity defense rides on the assumption that at the material time, the accused person was ailing from a mental illness making them incapable of differentiating right from wrong behavior or appreciating the nature of the crime. The test for establishing the ...

Insanity Defense Paper

Insanity Defense Paper

A person is not responsible for criminal act if such behavior was a result of mental disease or defect and if the defendant did not have any significant opportunity to assess the unlawfulness of his conduct or to subordinate his behavior requirements of the law. Stu Dents cannot be not subject to criminal liability due to the fact that at the time of committing a socially dangerous act, he was insane, that is, could not be aware of his actions or control them due to chronic mental illness, disturbances of mental activity. During the arrest Stu ...

Introduction

One of the most common strategies of criminal defense attorneys when representing a defendant who has an unusual condition such as a mental abnormality, is to argue either that regardless of their actions, they are nevertheless not responsible for the crime or that they never had the capacity to commit a crime. The reason that criminal defense attorneys can make these arguments is that criminal law recognizes a number of unique situations where otherwise criminal conduct should not be subjected to a determination of guilt and the offender should be exempted from the crime (LaFave, 2000). These arguments, which ...

There are various guidelines in the United States of America that decide how tests may be used in legal cases. The three main systems are statutory, case law, and the one that corresponds to the American Psychological Association. Even though these three have the same principles and main points, they differ on their approach and the stipulations that they set for practitioners. The more legal aspects of these procedures respond to either statute or case law. Mental health standards vary from state to state, including the competency to be applicable for capital punishment. There are federal statutes that must ...

Introduction

The main legal issue raised in the present scenario is whether Andrea was suffering from mental insanity when she committed the aforementioned crimes and therefore whether she can successfully rely on the defense of insanity, say, on appeal. Further, this problem raises the issue of if Andrea’s ex-husband, Rusty, bears any criminal responsibility in the crime. As a general defense to criminal liability for all offenses, the defense of insanity allows the jury to return a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict. Under this defense, the accused person may claim that at the time they committed the ...

In this July 2013 trial, George Zimmerman stood accused of the second-degree murder of teenager Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman had shot Martin in February 2012 after a confrontation between the two in Sanford, Florida. From the beginning, Zimmerman defense team did not deny that he had shot Martin but rather that he shot Martin in self-defense (Linder, 2014). Claiming self-defense is one of the fundamental principles of exculpation in criminal law. The theory underlying exculpation holds that in some situations although a person has otherwise acted criminally, their actions are justified and therefore should not be subject to punishment. In ...

Insanity defense, as it is known in many jurisdictions refers to the assertion by a person accused of criminal prosecution that at the time of committing the criminal act(s) they were not in the right state of mind as to appreciate the wrongfulness of their acts. Insanity has been invoked in many jurisdictions to reverse legal decisions or acquit people accused of crimes and it comes forth as the perfect defense. Whenever it is applied, it permits a person who is factually guilty to escape punishment and incarceration. Canadian laws have numerous circumstances exempt individuals from criminal responsibility ...

Lorena Bobbitt had been accused of allegedly severing and mutilating her husband’s private parts in a case that has been described by her attorneys as being “one of the most bizarre episodes in US judicial history” (Ross, 1994, p. 2). Through her legal attorneys, Mrs. Bobbitt managed to convince the jury that she committed the offense of cutting off her husband’s penis using a knife while in a moment of temporary insanity that arose out of many years of abuse by John Wayne Bobbitt, her husband. She claimed that her husband had come home drunk like fish ...

Insanity Defense

Introduction One of the central issues of nowadays in the sphere of criminal law is insanity defense or so-called mental disorder defense, which is thought to be the basis for a person to be acquitted, or, namely, not be liable for an action. It is also characterized as ‘probably the most controversial criminal law doctrine, which, when used successfully, being a rare example in American law, gives a defendant, who has clearly committed the crime, even one as heinous as murder, is deemed not guilty and may not be punished It is noted that ‘mental illness has always played ...

In a criminal case, a defendant will often seek to plead the insanity defense. An insanity defense may be a particularly attractive option if the murder was especially egregious or heinous. But while pleading insanity can be a viable defense for certain defendants, courts of law do not accept insanity pleas from every defendant. In order for a defendant to pleas insanity successfully, the defendant must show that 1) the defendant did not know that what he did was wrong, and 2) that the defendant failed to act with the necessary mens rea requirement (Fradella, 2007, p. 9). These ...

Strict liability and the insanity defense share some very interesting and ironic components. Strict liability penalizes for “lack of thought or reason” while the insanity defense excuses this “lack of thought or reason.” The law operates quite strangely at times. In regards to the insanity defense, I firmly believe that it should be eliminated because it often excuses the criminal act and can be used as a loophole.

In a criminal case, the act and consequence should be the primary concerns, especially when considering violent crimes or crimes that harm individuals in other ways. However, when the insanity defense ...

Introduction

Before the establishment of the M’Naghten rule, it was not clear whether or not an insane individual could be judged as being guilty if the individual was accused of any criminal offence. The M'Naghten Rule refers to a rule that was established in 1843 in a case that involved Daniel M’Naghten and the then England Prime minister Sir Robert Peel, (Goldstein, 1980). The rule can be said to be test for criminal insanity. It is important to note that as per this rule on the basis of insanity reasons, the defendant cannot be judged as being guilty more ...

Abstract

There exist numerous defenses to criminal charges. The defenses are usually used by the persons facing particular charges in a bit to negate the requisites of a crime, especially the aspect of intent. In criminal cases the general rule is that crimes are offences that are usually committed against the government. Every person is usually presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. As such, the burden of proof lies on the government to prove that a crime was committed and that the accused person committed the alleged crime. The prosecution side, which represents the government in a criminal trial, must convince the judge ...

- What is meant by the phrase “the rule of law,” as used in a democratic society? The rule of law (nomocracy) is primarily referent to the law’s authority and influence across the society. This is especially the case with constraints on behavior as well as behavioral influence of various government officials. The phrase traces back to mid 16th century, and was popularized in the 20th century. This aspect became integral to the ancient philosophers including Aristotle. Through him, law needs govern the Rule of law implying that all citizens are under the law of the land. This ...

In the summer of 2001, Andrea Yates murdered all five of her young children. When she surrendered to authorities, she said that Satan had had a conversation with her, and she had decided to kill the children so that they would not go to hell. When she went on trial, she was initially convicted but ended up receiving an acquittal by virtue of insanity. There are several different factors that went into her diagnosis. In my opinion, a combination of biological and behavioral issues combined to lead Andrea Yates to kill her children. Given the fact that each childbirth gave ...

Insanity Defense

Insanity Defense Various legal systems provide different types of legal defenses that could be used by the defendants in their criminal cases. Nevertheless, application of these defenses depends on the circumstances and the nature of cases being faced. The insanity defense is one the oldest legal defenses. According to the insanity defense, the accused can avoid prosecution for the crimes committed is it can be proved that at the time when the crime was committed the defendant was not insane hence did not appreciate the quality or nature or wrongfulness of the acts (Fersch, 2005). It is imperative ...

(School/University)

Defenses used to Challenge Criminal Intent:’

Entrapment Cole and Smith (2007, p. 69) states that the defense of “entrapment” can be used by counsel to prove that the defendant is bereft of criminal intent. Under this defense, the law would exclude the defendants when it is proven that law enforcement officials coaxed the person to commit the crime. However, this limitation does not preclude the use of the undercover agents to trap the criminals, nor does it mean that the police should create opportunities or situations for criminals to commit crimes. Nevertheless, the defense can be availed of when the police clearly motivated ...

Insanity Defense

Insanity Defense

Introduction

Insanity defense refers to a defendant found to be guilty of a crime, but ended up in the mental institution instead of heading straight to correctional facility. Insanity defense is one of the most widely used court justifications of a crime in which the defendant proves to the court that he was not in his proper state of mind while committing the crime (Callahan et al., 1991). Failing to determine what is right o wrong acted upon the conditions of uncontrolled impulses resulted to the jury holding the defendant not guilty. This discussion will explore the use insanity as court ...

The article addresses how insanity is used as a defense in the courts. Insanity refers to a situation whereby an individual has a mental problem hence is affected psychologically. In this case, the individual cannot be responsible for his/her actions. An individual has to prove to the court that he/she was not responsible for the criminal activities because he/she had mental problems. According to the article, judges are aware that the insane individuals can claim insanity as a defense. In that case, the insane person is said not to be guilty. However, when a jury is involved the results are different. A jury ...

Introduction

The insanity defense is an amendment to the strict rules of common law that allows an accused to be acquitted, completely or substantially, of the charges leveled against him, whether he is guilty or not. For this plea to hold water in a court of law, defendants must provide sufficient notification to the court. The court will then use health experts to examine the accused and determine their state of the psychology. The defense may also bring witnesses, who personally know the accused, to the stand to testify on his or her mental capacity. However, the nature of the ...

The defendant has been charged with a series of crimes including homicide, assault of a police officer, kidnapping, burglary, and crimes related to drugs. The first issue is whether Stu Dents understands these charges and is competent to stand trial. Competency to stand trial requires that a defendant have the mental capacity to understand the changes against him, the procedures of the court, and the consequences of his being found guilty. He must also be competent enough to be able to help his lawyers plan a legal strategy, remember and describe details related to the crimes charged against him, explain his motives, testify ...