Insanity Defense Essay

Insanity Defense
To be real: I call myself crazy after checking my boyfriend's location every hour to make sure he is
where he says. Goodness, there are several conversations that led up to driving to the unknown
location. Everyone can relate; but, it is a complete humiliation to those that suffer abnormal
thoughts, feelings, and emotions. The easy–going, everyday decisions that normalcy demands
terrorizes the brain of the insane. Get this, Brandon Gaille points out just how serious this problem
is, "There are 51 types of insanity defense in the United States" (Gaille 2018). Legal systems take
notice of the severity of mental illness. But, according to Natasha McKenna of the Washington Post,
the answer to crime and insanity is to "hand them off" to a mental health institution and forget about
the consequences of a person's actions (McKenna 1). Mckenna practically dismisses people as
objects, throwing...show more content...
The problem not only lies with the mentally ill, but people already in incarceration. Doris James
presents the recurring theme of insanity stating that "At midyear 2005 more than half of all prison
and jail inmates had a mental health problem" (James 1). The answer for lawlessness does not begin
with a cold, empty cell. Rather, governmental entities can begin with the realization that atrocity will
continue unless inmates have the advantage of mental health treatment. A therapeutic system should
be installed for the sake of the inmates that were not labeled "crazy." The answer is not to train
"hundreds of cops and sheriff's deputies ... which could more efficiently deploy police officers and
others whose time is now too often monopolized tending to crisis for which they lack adequate
training" (McKenna 2). Excuse me? That is why Freud invented psychology: to have psychologists.
If police officers wanted to teach psychology to people, they would become psychologist on their
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

The Pros And Cons Of The Insanity Defense
In the past three years, the United States has seen the dramatic rise of mass shootings, from Pulse
Nightclub to the Aurora Massacre, to Las Vegas, to the most recent Texas Baptist massacre. These
events have sparked heated controversy about how we in the United States deal with both guns and
people with mental illness. Chief among the latter being the preferential treatment, and reduced
sentencing society gives these individuals with mental illness; a practice commonly known as the "
insanity defense." The controversial insanity defense is based on an outdated legal philosophy, fails
to keep the public safe and allows for a loophole through which other criminals can jump through
to receive a reduced sentence. The Insanity defense is built upon the notion that individuals, who
are not fully mentally aware, should be held less responsible for their actions than those who are
fully aware. This assumption, perhaps important for determining moral culpability fails when it is
transferred over into our legal system. As a country, we need to recognize that moral and legal
responsibility are two different things which ought to be kept separate if we hope to keep
ourselves and our loved ones safe in a world where mental illness is prevalent. Even if you ignore
the above–mentioned argument that the insanity defense is flawed on principle, it is not hard to see
how it fails in practice. Let us assume that the person who commits a mass shooting is in fact
mentally ill and it is not

Insanity Defense
Not guilty by reason of insanity is a defense strategy that has often been used by serial murderers in
the past once an offender has been charged; however, contradictory to popular belief, this defense
has been used in less than one percent of all criminal cases. According to Hickey, "The legal system
uses the term insanity to define the state of mind of an offender at the time of the offense; offenders
may be deemed insane at the moment of the crime and only for that period of time" (2014, p. 75).
There have been four insanity defenses used in the United States to determine criminal responsibility,
although only two are still in use to this day, and without much success. The M'Naughten rule was
the first legal test established in the

Insanity Defense Myths
There are a large number of myths surrounding the not criminally responsible verdict in the public.
Some of these perpetuated by politicians and some are growing public concerns in part due to the
media coverage given to these cases. Following are some of the Most Common myths surrounding
the insanity defence.
1.The defense is seen as a legal loophole and that there are those who get off scot free even in the
most heinous of crimes.
2.There is vast number of individuals who use insanity defense and many who successfully use it.
3.There is little risk for the defendant in asserting to an Insanity defense.
4.There is not gender bias in the insanity defences
5.Those released via the verdict of not criminally responsible are out in society

Forms Of The Insanity Defense
The insanity defense has been established and turned into a challenging but in many ways an
understandable and effective defense system in a criminal justice process. Within the legal system,
there has to be two general requirements for criminal sanction against an individual Mens rea and
actus reus. Therefore, guilty mind or guilty act must be present to present that an individual
committed the crime. The insanity defense originates from the knowledge that certain medical
illness with the individual's capability to form the Mens Rea as required by law. Throughout the
following essay we will be discussing a little in–depth about the different forms of Insanity defense.
Forms of Insanity Defense
The insanity defense has been a controversial subject for years, as it touches some sensitive topics
pertaining to mental illness. In many cases the insanity defense is presented as a defense mechanism
and many times an excuse. The defense will argue that the defendant is not responsible for their
actions due to an irregular act at the time of the crime. "Even when the prosecution has met this
burden of proof, the insanity defense serves as an affirmative defense for the defendant," (Grachek,
2006). Currently there are four forms of the insanity defense which presently exist:M 'Naghten,
irresistible impulse, substantial capacity, and Durham. M' Naghten insanity defense also called the
right–wrong test, for the reason that it is cognitive and focuses on the offender's

Essay about The Insanity Defense
Each state, and the District of Columbia, has its own statute outlining the standard for determining
whether a defendant is legally insane, therefore not responsible, at the time the crime is committed.
"An insanity defense is based on the theory that most people can choose to follow the law; but a few
select persons cannot be held accountable because mental disease or disability deprives them of the
ability to make a rational / voluntary choice. Such individuals need special treatment as opposed to
prison; punishment is not likely to deter future antisocial conduct of these mentally diseased
individuals." Retrieved on 5/25/2010 from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley
/EVOL.HTM
There are basically two...show more content...
After advances in the world of psychiatry, new interests in the field of psychology, new medications
thought to cure mental disease, and much frustration with the M'Naghten Rule, the courts adopted a
new standard – The Durham Test. The test provided that:
"A person was not criminally responsible if the unlawful act was a product of mental disease or
defect. A jury was required to answer two questions: (1) did the defendant have a mental disease
or defect? and (2) if so, was the disease or defect the reason for the unlawful act? Both of the
answers had to be "yes" to return a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. The test was a
recognition of that mental illness was a disease that could be treated and possibly cured." Retrieved
on 5/25/2010 from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/EVOL.HTM
In 1962, due to much criticism of the various tests for the insanity defense, the American Law
Institute (ALI) designed a new test that requires that the mental disease or defect be a mental
diagnosis. The penal code test is much broader than the M'Naghten Rule and the Irresistible Impulse
test. The American Law Institute's Model Penal Code Test states:
"A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental
disease or

Insanity Plea Defense Essay
The Validation for the Insanity Plea Defense in our current Judicial System is very low, but it can
still occur. So in my defense , the Insanity Plea is still alive till today.
There has been many cases where people don't get accused for the crime they committed for
reasoning of insanity and this starts way back in the year 1859. Dan Sickles is one of the few cases
that wasn't founded guilty for reason of insanity. Dan Sickles in 1859 killed a man in close range
because, his wife was having an affair so he confronted the man and ended up shooting him. They
pleaded the trial as not guilty because, during the war he was known as an aggressive and
combative general and they believe sense he was in the war for so many years, that is what caused
him to click and made him think he had to kill him. Dan sickles had something called "Temporary
Insanity". Temporary Insanity is when a defendant was insane during the commission of a crime, but
they later regained their sanity after the criminal act was carried out. He was the first person in the
U.S aquitted of murder and didn't get no punishment for the crime committed, which basically means
he got away with murder because he was insane....show more content...
Andrea Yates was accused of drowning her 5 children in the bathtub on June 20th, 2001. They
sentenced her as not guilty because In 1999, Yates was treated for postpartum depression and
psychosis. Postpartum depression is depression suffered by a mother following childbirth, typically
arising from the combination of hormonal changes, this can also make the mother not get along with
the child. psychological adjustment to motherhood, and fatigue. psychosis is a severe mental
disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.
These two mental illnesses ran in her

The Legal Elements Of The Insanity Defense Essay
Insanity Defense When learning about the legal elements of a crime, it is stated that in order to
establish a crime was committed Actus Reus and Mens Rea must be shown. There is however, a
default in this procedure. The Free Dictionary defines insanity as "Insanity a legal term for mental
illness of such degree that the individual is not responsible for his or her acts." This is one of
many legal definitions of insanity, and as you can see a key part of this definition is "not
responsible for his or her acts." How can we then decipherer Mens Rea ? When making an insanity
defense, you are making the argument that the defendant had no Mens Rea during the crime or
even a persisting condition. This is where controversy begins, and many debates start to rise about
the circumstances of using this as a defense. As studies continue, and more cases are brought out
using the insanity defense the increase in demand for a consistent diagnosis is fast approaching.
One of the many defaults with cases with this particular defense is, there is never one diagnosis,
and different events lead up to other areas. There is only one repeating factor that all insanity
defenses have in common, which is the lack of Mens Rea. The medical definition of insanity
differs completely from the legal aspect. The medical definition of insanity is, as The Free
Dictionary defines "a medically obsolete term for mental derangement or disorder." There is no
mention of criminal activity or lack of responsibility

Pros And Cons Of The Insanity Defense
This paper is going to explain the research that I have done on the insanity defense in general, my
own opinion on the use of pleading insanity, a recent case on the successful pleading of insanity to
prevent a defendant from being criminally responsible, and the positives and negatives of the
insanity defense. I am also going to do my best to explain what should happen to a criminal
defendant after they are declared by the courts to be insane, as well citing all of my research. The
first article I found was found in the Washington Post and it explains that the insanity defense
typically refers to a defendant's plea of not guilty because of the lack of mental cognizance to
realize the wrongness of their doing and why it was wrong. Some states allow defendants to argue
that they knew what did was criminal, but they were not able to control it, this is sometimes called
the "irresistible impulse"...show more content...
The top 3 positive points about the defense of insanity are as follows. The defendant might not get
sent to jail but there is no guarantee. If the defendant was proven not guilty by reason of insanity,
they will not be sentenced to the death penalty. If the defendant is declared cured by a psychiatric
facility, and they are declared as no threat to society, they can go free. Here are the top 3 negative
aspects of the insanity defense. Some jurisdictions have already done away with this practice of
defense. For jurisdictions still allowing this, it is not that easy to be acquitted. Without the
defendant's lawyer having proof of mental records, insanity defense is hard to believe. The insanity
defense is not a guarantee for the defendant to be set free. The chances are very high that the
defendant will be sent to a psychiatric facility. In this next paragraph and my conclusion, I will
explain what should to the defendant if they are declared to be

Insanity as a Defense
In this article I will consider whether the current claw defence of insanity is ineffective, out–dated
and in need of reform. I will do so by contemplating several criticism of the insanity defence arising
from the M'Naghten rules .
The concept of insanity as a defence was established in the early eighteenth century in the Arnold's
case (1724) and was further developed in the late 18th century in the Hadfield's case (1800), but the
standart test of criminal liability was only formed after the case of Daniel M'Naghten (1843). This
case established the special verdict of вЂљ'not guilty by reason of insanity'.
Over the years, academics have identified uncertainity in the insanity defence. First, the out–dated
M'Naghten rules cover crimes including non–mental illnesses like in the case of Kemp (1957) and
also the epilepsy, diabetes and sleepwalking because the English courts accept that these defendants
(D) are of unsound mind when they are not. This mean that the insanity defence is weak and in need
of reform.
In murder cases, most defendants prefer to seek the other defence such as diminished responsibility
and non–insane automatism due to stigma attached.
THE M'NAGHTEN RULES
On January 20, 1843 Daniel M'Naghten shot a person, who died, while suffering from morbid
delusions. The court established that the he was suffering from disease of the mind and he did not
know his action.
The House of Lords indicated that: "Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and ... that to

The Argument Of The Insanity Defense
The insanity defense has been a controversial issue among many individuals and legal experts.
Whether or not an individual 's current mental state can get in the way of their ability to
differentiate right from wrong at the time of a committed crime has been a discussion of great
debate among society. Although it is rarely used in criminal proceedings its credibility is still
questioned by many people. People who believe that the insanity defense should be abolished argue
that the individual committed the crime regardless of being insane or not and they deserve to be
punished. On the other end of the spectrum, some people believe that individuals should not be
punished for the crime they have committed because they suffer from a mental illness that made
them unaware of their actions at the time of the crime. According to Slovenko (1999), the Black 's
Law Dictionary defines legal insanity as "a condition which renders the affected person unfit to
enjoy liberty of action because of the unreliability of his behavior with concomitant danger to
himself and others" (p. 166). In other words, the insanity defense is pleaded when the individual
believes that at the time of the crime they were unaware of their actions due to mental illness. The
most common tests that have been used to evaluate an individual 's insanity at the time of the crime
is the M 'Naughten Rule, the Irresistible Impulse test, the Durham Rule, and the Model Penal Code.
The first test came about in 1843 when

Arguments Against Insanity Defense
The word insanity is used by a defender in criminal prosecution to avoid liability for the
commission of a crime by using a mental illness as a justification. Insanity is the mental state of not
being able to distinguish fantasy from reality, lack of conduct affairs due to psychosis, or is subject
to uncontrollable impulsive behavior (Lilienfeld 2009). In the article, Rethinking the Revolving
Door Dereck Denckla argues that "while the number of people with mental illness in state psychiatric
hospitals has decreased precipitously over the last thirty years, the number of mentally–ill people in
jails and prisons has steadily increased (Denckla 2001)." This is because psychiatrists are leaving
there patients unattended letting them cause damage to innocent people. However, threw out the
years defendants have gotten away with insanity defense and delinquents now want to use this form
of excuse as well. Insanity defense has made it difficult for the courts to determine an answer since
they will need sufficient evidence to determine whether the defendant is guilty or freed because of
psychological disorder. Cases like these should be taken to another level of...show more content...
If circumstances like this occur psychiatrist should also be held responsible and face a consequence
so that they can also be more cautious and prevent incidents like these. Insanity defense should be
plead only when there is sufficient evidence from a psychiatrist or doctor that such act was an effect
of a mental illness or disorder. However, the defendant should still be disciplined in a manner that
they can understand and attain. The punishment should also be determined by the level of the crime.
If the courts decides to free the defendant the patient should be closely observed by a medical
practitioner to help prevent effects that can prone to little or serious

The Importance Of The Insanity Defense
The availability of the insanity defense does not allow a large number of dangerous criminals to be
free. The reason for this is because the standards for legal insanity is very high. Insanity is mental or
psychological impairment used as defense against a criminal case. Insanity defense rests on the
assumption that someone who is insane at the time of a crime lacks capacity to form mens rea.
One test many states use to determine insanity is the M'Haghter rule. Under this test, a person is
insane if they don't know right from wrong. Over the years, many states have removed the first part
in which the person did not know the nature and quality of the act. Since the M'Naghten rule did not
address the situation of a defendant who knew right

Essay On Insanity Defense
The purpose of the insanity defense is to protect the defendants that are found to be mentally ill.
Although insanity may be difficult to prove, it gives the opportunity for others to prove that they
are not mentally competent to understand the severe degree of their actions. An accused that is
not mentally stable, is not able to stand trial like every other criminal. They have to find a
different approach during their trial. They cannot think rationally, and they are not in contact
with reality so therefore, they have the chance to use the plea. The defense is idea to those who
actually have a mental disorder or have a history of dealing with a mental disorder. There are a lot
of courses of action that have to be taken when it comes to the plea. Regardless of all the
processes that have to be done, it is better for a mentally ill defendant to seek this alibi. It is
imperative for the accused to try to give a justification for their actions in order to avoid getting
possible jail time. With the diagnosis of a mental health professional, they are able to provide
verification of their mental illness. The insanity defense is the only defense that they are supplied
with to defend their position in a case. According to the article, Insanity Defense: Proposals...show
more content...
The plea should be considered as a right for criminals trying to justify themselves in court. It would
right to help the people who are mentally ill rather than avoiding the fact that they are mentally
incompetent, and placing them in prison. There would be negative affects if mentally ill defendants
do not get the proper medical treatment necessary. It is better to take action against the mental
illness of a criminal so they will not put themselves and others at risk. The insanity defense would
most likely lead them to a longer sentence, but will give them a chance to better their mental

Insanity Defense
For years, the insanity defense has developed and turned into a difficult but sometime successful
defense system in a court of law. The exact law changes from state to state however the main idea
remains the same. The insanity defense could apply or be used on a person who is considered
legally insane. They must have a severe mental disease or defect and must prove they were at the
time of the crime, legally insane. Also said person has to prove they didn't know the impact,
quality or the nature of their act or acts (The Insanity). The insanity defense has been a
controversial subject for years and years. One of the main reasons for this controversy is the
inability for lawmakers to decide on a solid legal definition of insane. There are...show more
content...
Also, some are leery of the honesty of psychiatrist assessment. These people say that psychiatrist
judgment is bias because psychiatrists live a wealthy life so the understanding of someone with a
poor life is not there. This could or would in guilty feelings towards the criminal so in turn the
psychiatrists try to help by giving testimony that would help them out (Valtz). Personally I feel as
though the Insanity defense is a good thing for the United States. The mentally insane cannot be
tossed into a jail cell and be forgotten about; this will in turn create more problems. I feel without the
insanity defense our society would use prison to house all the insane people who have committed
crimes without understanding. These people obviously need help and cannot be thrown out of
society and forgotten, they need to be rehabilitated so they can function in society. Teaching the
insane right from wrong in a way they will understand is how they will be reformed into law
abiding citizens. However, if the insanity defense was use more often than it is, or over used my
feelings would be different from what they are now. This subject affects me and everyone in society
in that if dangerous mentally insane people are not properly taken care of in an institution they can
become a reoccurring threat to society. This issue is pretty stagnant compared to other political
issues; the most recent high profile insanity defense case was in 1981 when John

Insanity Defense Essay
"Insanity is defined as a mental disorder of such severity as to render its victim incapable of
managing his affairs or conforming to social standards." (Insanity, pg. 1) It is used in court to state
that the defendant was not aware of what he/she was doing at the time of the crime, due to mental
illnesses. But insanity is a legal, not a medical, definition. There is a difference between mental
illness and going insane. Many problems are raised by the existence of the insanity defense. For
example, determining the patient's true mental illness (whether they are faking or not), placement of
the mentally ill after trial, the credibility of the psychological experts, the percentage of cases that
are actually successful,...show more content...
This rule focuses on cognition, which alone is not enough to determine whether someone is mentally
disabled. The M'Naghten rule remained the definition of the insanity defense up until 1954.
When the Durham case arose the insanity test was changed. Judge David Baezelon stated that, "an
accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental
defect." (Mental Health Law and the US Judicial System, pg 4) This was the foundation for the new
insanity test. Baezelon worked with psychologists and psychiatrists in developing the new test and
in 1962 the "Durham Rule" was founded. It was said to be better than the M'Naghten rule in that it
included both cognition and volitional impairment. The M'Naghten rule didn't include volitional
impairment, which is an irresistible impulse while cognition impairment is not understanding the
quality of the act. The federal courts eventually rejected the Durham rule because its definition was
too broad. Alcoholics, compulsive gamblers and drug addicts had successfully used the defense to
defeat a wide variety of crimes.
In 1972, the American Law Institute (a panel of legal experts) developed a new rule for insanity as
part of the Model Penal Code. This rule says that a defendant is not responsible

Insanity And The Insanity Defense
The purpose of this essay is to explain why the insanity plea, or the insanity defense as it is also
known, is not a legitimate defense for any type of crime. The insanity defense has been around for
a number of years but does it make a mockery of the legal system? While many people have used the
insanity defense, it loses more times than it wins. This defense is used when someone believes they
did not know right from wrong while committing the crime. The problem with this is that it is hard
to know someone's mental state when there is not much evidence to go on. Someone can become
mentally ill after a crime or someone may have been mentally ill before a crime. Neither one of
these issues always weigh on the actual crime. A large...show more content...
While it is important to note that there are certain behaviors that are found to be common when
someone is depressed, depression does not facilitate itself the same way in all people. The National
Institute of Mental Health (n.d.) tells us, "People with depressive illnesses do not all experience the
same symptoms. The severity, frequency, and duration of symptoms vary depending on the
individual and his or her particular illness." Understanding that there are so many different
interpretations of the word insanity, it could be argued that knowing the difference between right
and wrong is not always clear. The following syllogistic formula can be considered when thinking
about this topic:
Major Premise: All people who plead insanity are admitting to a mental disease or defect.
Minor Premise: If a person has a mental disease or defect, it does not mean that he/she cannot tell
right from wrong.
Conclusion: If a person uses an insanity defense, it does not mean that he/she did not know right
from wrong while committing the crime.
Brannigan (2005) tells the story of Andrea Pia Yates. Ms. Yates was a mother of five children all
under the age of seven. While Ms. Yates was depressed, her own claim, she drowned each child
one at a time in the bathtub of their home on March 13, 2002. She admitted to killing all of the
children, but she claimed that she was not guilty by reason of insanity. She was found guilty and is
now

Insanity Defense Essay
The insanity defense has been quite a controversial subject. It has been used by some of the most
baleful criminals in history. Its controversy derives from the belief that people who plead insanity
are excused from fault of their crimes. Surprisingly however, this defense is rarely used because
of how hard it is to prove legal insanity. Less than one percent of criminals choose to plead insanity
and of those who choose to plead insanity the success is quite low at 25 percent.( Rolf. p. 2) This
defense has been around for centuries. It can be dated back to the 14th century. Kings were willing
to pardon crimes to those who were deemed "mad". By the 18th century the " wild beast" test was
developed by some English courts. However the most...show more content...
The M'Naghten insanity defense is cognitive and it focus on the person's awareness rather than their
ability to control their actions. This defense requires two elements, first the defendant must be
suffering from a mental defect (usually based on testimony of medical experts) at the time that the
crime is committed. Second, the trier of fact must find that because of the mental defect the
defendant is not aware of the nature and quality of the crime or that the act is wrong. Some
examples of a mental defect or disease of the mind as it can also be known can be diseases such as
paranoia, psychosis or schizophrenia. However different jurisdictions use different standards of
awareness. For example some use the terms know or understand while others use the term
"appreciate". Depending on which term is use the standard varies. If the term being used is know or
understand the trier must prove that there is a basic level of awareness under the attendant
circumstances. On the other hand if the term being used is ap, preciate the trier of fact must analyze
the defendant's emotional state. Taking all of this into consideration the M'Naghten rule faces plenty
of criticism because of the fact that it does not take into consideration those individuals who might
cognitively know that they are committing a crime but they cannot stop themselves. Because of this
argument Jurisdictions began to develop more variations of the insanity defense such as irresistible
Impulse.
The

Insanity Defense Research Paper
Throughout history people who have a mental health illness are not accepted in society. The attitudes
of people in society, for example the workplace, is an important measure of the success of that
society. Segregating people with mental illnesses from society, by putting someone in a institute,
contributed to the attitude that an individual with mental illness are not capable of participating or
contributing in society. These negative stereotypes are often portrayed in media, and influence the
stigma of mental health illness being dangerous. This controversial concept of dangerousness states
that individuals with a mental illness are more dangerous than those without a mental illness.
Various forms of discrimination and exclusion in society is still present today. If society begins to
understand mental illness, then they will judge a lot less. Success in that society will come when
society accepts other people who are different...show more content...
The issue was never about if there should be an insanity defense, but what the criteria should be, so
that caused several changes throughout the eras. Courts use the criteria to determine whether the
mental illness did interfere with the defendant's ability to know the difference between right and
wrong in their behavior. In the United States, a mental health professional, such as a psychologist, is
used during the insanity case as an expert witness, but the determination of the defense is determined
by a jury, not by a psychologist. In the past when someone was found not guilty by the insanity
defense, the person would walk out of the courtroom and go back into society, and often repeat the
same behavior. Today what happens to the defendant varies by state, but is usually required to have
treatment in mental institutions until they die or found they no longer are a threat to their self or

Pros And Cons Of Insanity Defense
The insanity defense must exist in the justice system; I have to disagree with this statement. Insanity
defense is an excuse used in criminal trials which argue that the defendant should not be liable for
their actions due to mental disorders. However, I strongly believe that that insanity defense system
should be abolished.
When tested for cognitive insanity, the defendant must be impaired by a mental disorder, at the time
he or she committed the act and was not aware that the act was wrong. Another kind of insanity
defense is irresistible impulse.
Firstly, there is no unified legal standards for insanity defense across the world. For example, in the
United States, 46 states have an insanity defense, and some states like Montana, Utah, Kansas, Idaho
and Nevada have decided to abolish the insanity defense in the system. (Cevallos, 2015) According
to an eight–state study, the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all court cases and, when
used, has only a 26% success rate. (Schmallenger, 2001) The main reason is that, if they used
insanity as an excuse, but found that they are actually legally not insane, the judge may extend the
sentence period. It is indeed very risky to use insanity as a defense, hence most criminals prefer to
directly plead guilty without insanity defense. Insanity defense would not be useful, since lawyers
have probably advised their clients that it is hard to prove that someone is legally insane, and might
as well not appeal to the insanity defense....show more content...
Since the concept of free will cannot be explained in medical terms and there is no sure–way to
measure insanity, it does not make any sense to allow the prosecution and defendants' psychiatrists
argue over the

Insanity Defense Essay

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais de Online Paper Writing Services Haynes

Mais de Online Paper Writing Services Haynes (20)

Último

Último (20)

Insanity Defense Essay