Defense of the Insanity Defense
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Alan Stone in Chapter 17, begins his discussion of the insanity defense by defining the basic nature of the law, and the basic nature of psychiatry. He argues that the law is formal, rigid, traditional, objective and judgmental; psychiatry is flighty, expansive, unconventional, subjective, and understanding. There seems to be little room for common ground. Stone intimates, that what the law wanted from psychiatric investigation, was rock-bound methodology that explained aberrant behavior. During the 1950s the Durham decision further cemented the relationship between the two disciplines. The California Supreme Court seemed more willing to be lead by psychiatric reasoning, giving more credence to the insanity plea, and bring the concept of diminished capacity to the fore.Diminished capacity gave leeway to the idea that mental disabilities less severe than those associated with insanity could interfere with an individual's ability to premeditate or choose to do evil. In recent years, with increasing criticism of the insanity defense, the pendulum has begun to swing in the direction of law, not psychiatry. Within the last twenty plus years the Durham decision has been repudiated by the same D.C. court that accepted it. The California Legislature has abolished diminished capacity, and the mood is increasing to separate psychiatry from legal matters on a more formalized basis. In defense of the insanity defense, Stone points out that while many high profil
. . .
ense of dismantling insanity, as a means of excusing personal actions, Lykken invokes ancient societal doctrines. First, is the ancient doctrine of just desserts, which reflects the public's need to see justice done. Next is the principle of deterrence, which is to show the miscreants that some behaviors will not be tolerated. Third in this line of reasoning is the premise that society should be protected by the segregation of dangerous persons. Last in Lyyken's line of reasoning is the principle of rehabilitation, which he claims is sadly out of line with reality, it does not work. Lykken's most salient point, regarding the insanity defense deals with the differences between law and psychiatry. The lawáwants know who is responsible and eventually, who can be considered guilty of a crime. Psychiatry is not equipped to make that distinction, cannot classify actions as determined or undetermined, and therefore is in no position to pronounce the relative innocence or guilt of anyone.
Lykken does not propose that the insanity defense be eliminated, merely separated from the purely criminal proceedings which delineate who was responsible for the actions in question. After this isádecided, the insanity defense can be taken up in a hea
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Con Article, Code Hammurabi, California Legislature, Supreme Court, Stone Chapter, Defense Choice, Finally Lykken, insanity defense, Lykken DT, Stone A, Community Psychiatry, defense insanity defense, responsible actions, psychiatric witness, system law, psychiatric testimony, found guilty, diminished capacity, defense stone, defense insanity, legal system, insanity defense stone, discussion insanity defense, begins discussion insanity,
Approximate Word count = 1495
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Defense of the Insanity Defense
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
