The "insanity plea" for murder,fair or unfair?

Answer 1

If insanity is not enough to affect the real guilt of a person, then it should be reasonable to execute children who get hold of guns and accidentally kill a playmate. If murder charges are not only meant to punish those who INTEND to harm others, then any driver who survives a car accident with fatalities should also be charged with murder. On the other hand, religious and philosophical leaders for thousands of years have laid out arguments for why it is only really fair to punish people who do bad things because they intend to do bad things.

The insanity plea basically says that a person suffers from a mental illness that made it impossible for the person to truly intend to do the harm they did. It doesn't deny that the harm was done, and it isn't "getting off scott-free", as the ignorant often claim. To make the plea, you have to basically plead insane, which means you agree to let the state commit you to an insane asylum -- which is generally not a terrific place to be. While many homicide convictions carry sentences of just a few years, commitment for insanity is by its nature indefinite and may continue for the entirety of the person's life -- even if they might have walked out of jail years earlier had it not been for their "cop out".

Many of the respondents here sound like a "pitchfork and torch" brigade, ignorant, hasty for revenge (even against imaginary transgressors), and with little real thought for what justice is all about. It's probably a good thing they're also the people who skip jury duty.

Answer 2

An Insanity plea, should not even be considered. You are either capable of murder or not. I think that the truly insane would not be sane enough to plea insanity and some sane people are declared insane by sympathetic psychiatrists who would not want to be responsible for someone getting the death penalty. I think that in the court room ...the playing field should be even. It wouldn't be even or 'fair' if some people get to plead insanity and some don't. It would only be fair if everone was declared insane. If the suspect gets to have a psychiatric evaluation, then everyone on the jury and the prosecutor...everyone involved in the case should have a psych. evaluation.

Answer 3

No i do not imagine that's unfair. it truly is been in Scotland on condition that very last march and in Wales and northerly eire this 3 hundred and sixty 5 days. maximum individuals have easy, authentic with some moans, yet then they agree that the ambience in pubs is a lot extra effectual. a lot less issues, coughs etc. Why ought to the individuals in England imagine they should be exempt from the smoking ban. perhaps bar workers don't have the luxurious of having any decision the position they can artwork. Bars actually have those who smoke and non those who smoke. Do you recommend then that a non smoker ought to ought to submit with the smoker blowing smoke throughout them. Is it a question of decision? Then what about the alternative for the non-smoker or is that not an decision Prisons are considered as an part of position of abode for the prisoners so smoking can not be banned there.

Answer 4

Each state has different criteria for the "insanity plea". Some are fair - some unfair.

There are people who really can't be held responsible at the time, but those numbers are so small compared to those who use the defense. They really need to be narrowly defined.

Kinda goes back to "better to let 100 guilty go free than jail 1 innocent" or along those lines.

Answer 5

Depends. If you're the suspect vying for insanity, that's fair. But if you're the victim's family, that sucks.

Honestly? Unfair. If a person who has homicidal tendencies cannot be controlled and he'll just be a burden to the society, he shouldn't get away with it. He should be executed. And if a person pleading for insanity is really a scheming, evil criminal, then he shouldn't be given a chance to smooth out what he's done just by saying he's insane.

Hope I helped.(^_^)

Answer 6

Defiantly fair.... if he gets put in the crazy house with a strait jacket with padded white walls like all the other insane people do. if you are that crazy, you should be locked up anyway.


if its bad enough for execution, the executee is too insane to live.

Answer 7

UNFAIR! Nine times out of 10 it's a cop-out. Basically a way to get away with murder.

Answer 8

Murder is murder. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If the person is insane enough to kill another human being - then they dont deserve to live.

Answer 9

i think the entire law system is unfair, if you got money yu can get away with anything (wacko jacko, OJ, ramsee, etc... )

Answer 10

cheap shot at getting out of the death penalty.