Insanity Defense
This is an excerpt from the paper...
The insanity defense does not remove the responsibility of a criminal act from the perpetrator, instead it is a criminal defense arguing that at the time the act was committed “the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of the acts” (Legal, 2000, 1). Nonetheless, there are many who are opposed to the insanity defense as a form of criminal defense because they view it as a means whereby the defendant can escape the consequences of his or her actions. The underlying premise that excuses the defendant under the insanity defense is willful intent. Most offenses must show willful intent in order to be successful in the prosecution of a defendant. If the defendant is determined to have been insane at the time the acts were committed, it is almost impossible for the offense to show willful intent. The wording of many state laws basically defines insanity as an inability to appreciate the criminal nature of one’s acts. For example, the Kentucky law on insanity reads “Insanity means that, as a result of mental condition, [one lacks] substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of one’s conduct or to conform one’s conduct to the requirements of law” (Drogin and Barrett, 1998, 1). The vague and often ambiguous criteria used to label someone insane, even among psychiatric professionals, leads to the successful use of the insanity defense in m
. . .
n see that a lot of misperceptions are associated with the insanity defense. Further, the insanity defense is thought of an easy way out by those who hope to see it abolished as a form of criminal defense. However, the American Bar Association reports that those who successfully use the insanity defense are often incarcerated in one manner or another as long, or longer, than those convicted of similar crimes “Studies show that persons found not guilty by reason of insanity, on average, are held at least as long as—and often longer than—persons found guilty and sent to prison for similar crimes” (The Insanity, 1996, 3).
Different states view insanity differently and it is reflected in their statutes regarding the insanity defense. Those in the psychiatric profession also take a different stance than some states. For example, some states endorse the irresistible impulse test for insanity while the American Psychiatric Association (APA) does not. The APA test only endorses the insanity by mental disease or mental retardation test. Despite the ambiguous and arbitrary means of labeling someone insane in order to appeal to criminal non-responsibility, there are many who continue to support abolishing the insanity defense because
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
APA APA, Abner Louima, Evil Ill, Drogin Barrett, Public Defenders, Vatz Weinberg, Bar Association, insanity defense, Eric Schlosser, Association Available, Shaver Oct, defense abolished, criminal defense, insanity defense abolished, mental disease, defense seldom, defense insanity, defense insanity defense, willful intent, insanity 1996, defense seldom defense, reason insanity, guilty reason, insanity defense seldom, form criminal defense,
Approximate Word count = 1558
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Insanity Defense
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
