Give any and all input please! (eradicated- gotten rid of) Thank you. ;)
2007-02-26 08:54:05 · 7 answers · asked by diadame_2 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No. In the U.S. we recognize that the intent of a person in their actions (mens rea) is as important as the act itself (actus reus). For example, if someone accidentally hits someone while driving his car, and it was snowy, and he couldn't see because a big pile of snow had been gathered on the side of the road, and the pedestrian, who also couldn't see, ventured into the road at the wrong time, that person could not be charged criminally (or would be charged with a very minor offense). Compare that to a guy who intentionally runs another down with his car because the pedestrian is black. That's most likely murder.
If a person is not "sane," that is, has the ability to tell right from wrong (although the definition varies from state to state), then he can't have that "guilty mind," that "mens rea", which makes him as culpable as the muderer. Go back to the guy driving -- what if he was simply hallucinating, believing that the pedestrian was an alien-invading cockroach that had to be squashed or he would be killed? If that were true, would he be any different from the guy who accidentally hit the pedestrian because of the snow? No.
Remember, of course, that just because you're not guilty because of insanity doesn't mean you get released. The average amount of time that a person is committed to a mental institution is LONGER than the average length of time for the same crime when someone "wins" on an insanity defense. ("Temporary insanity" that will NEVER return and does not require a period of commitment, will almost NEVER succeed as a defense in court.) So it's not like people get to walk out of the courtroom, lying about their "insanity." (This has maybe happened once or twice in the country's history, but it happens a lot more in fiction, which is why, along with the Hinckley trial, Americans are so nervous about "insanity.")
Also remember that it's an affirmative defense -- in most jurisdictions, the defendant has to PROVE he is insane--either with some nominal evidence with the prosecution rebutting the same, or by a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE (i.e. more likely than not). So the defendant actually has the buden of proof! (This is not true in all states, but in many, and in the federal system.) This makes insanity much tougher too.
2007-02-26 09:55:56 · answer #1 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. There are some people who commit crimes that do not understand the difference between right and wrong. You can't hold them to the same standard as someone without mental problems. That defense is set aside just for them.
Then there are some people who clearly know the difference between right and wrong, pretend to have mental problems and claim insanity. With well trained psychotherapists, they can easily pick out the ones who are pretending and those who arn't.
2007-02-26 09:17:26 · answer #2 · answered by Kikyo 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, insanity is not a crime; those who are actually insane are unaware of the difference between right and wrong.
It should be eliminated is excuses citing PMS or post partum depression, "god" telling them do so something illegal or other "temporary insanity" reasonings, however, as this is not insanity; if it IS insanity, women should never have unsupervised custody of children.
2007-02-26 09:29:06 · answer #3 · answered by Phil #3 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For the most part yes. If you cannot decipher right from wrong, then you would not be able to object to your excecution. If truly insane, you would not be using that plea. Also, just because I don't see anything wrong with an act does not mean that it isn't wrong. Ex. One might support cannabalism, genocide, human medical testing and anarchy and see no wrong in it, but most of society would not agree and deem those ideas to be insane wheras they fully recognize their actions and reasoning behind them.
2007-02-26 09:57:27 · answer #4 · answered by Kelsey 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
some human beings in basic terms are not mentally competant. That in basic terms a fact, and not "all and varied's" fault. actual, there are stupid judgements. yet, on the completed, the insanity defence is valid.
2016-11-26 00:47:51 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Although some may use this unfairly to their advantage, most who use this defense have reason for it.
2007-02-26 09:02:39 · answer #6 · answered by Jennifer 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no because insanity is sinful too.
2007-02-26 09:18:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋