People who commit crimes and say they were "temporarily insane" or whatever, should they really be exempt from the full extent of the law? They still commited a crime.
2007-03-05 05:59:54 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Would you apply that to the woman who has been brutally abused by her husband over and over and finally snaps one day and kills him in his sleep? I would say that is justifiable homicide induced by temporary insanity.
2007-03-05 06:04:05 · answer #1 · answered by Sherri 2 Kewl 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The general public is skeptical of insanity defenses, because they are often abused.
The reality is that there ARE persons who are mentally ill/ insane, and do not have the capacity to understand what they did, or control over it. Persons who are psychotic don't choose to be that way.
The law does recognize what "insanity" really is, and has to take into account whether a person knowingly and willfully committed a crime.
Unless you have PERSONALLY lived with, or known someone who is truly psychotic, it is a concept that is very hard to grasp.
2007-03-05 06:23:34 · answer #2 · answered by wendy c 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Except for very rare cases, I am not in favor of an insanity defense. After all, the victim didn't have the chance to consider the perpetrator's alleged insanity before the crime, so it seems one-sided to allow it to benefit the victim after the fact.
Of course, it'd be very non-PC to suggest that all insane people wear t-shirts that say "I'm insane and might attack at any moment!" :)
2007-03-05 06:04:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only 1% of trials in the USA get the insanity plea. And typically no they shouldn't be exempt. But really it's their own problem because if they get the plea they are sent to a mental home until "fit" to leave...that's 5 days to life. I'd prefer prison over that.
2007-03-05 06:03:37 · answer #4 · answered by Jaroo 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It never really works and being insane is not an excuse. The only way an insanity defense can work is if you can pursuade the Judge & Jury that you were so insane that you didn't know that what you were doing was a crime.
2007-03-05 06:03:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, if the person at the time was unable to tell that what they were doing was wrong. Mental illness itself is not sufficient. And few people are able to sustain this defense, no matter what you see on Law and Order - this defense rarely holds up in court.
2007-03-05 07:09:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great question!
I think the answer is absolutely not. Isn't anyone who commits a murder insane, I mean how stable can you be if human life means nothing to you. The whole idea of insanity pleas is just another way for criminals to cop out and not have to take responsibility for their actions. Crazy or not, a criminal is threat to society and should be treated as such.
2007-03-05 06:06:15 · answer #7 · answered by answerman 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
In some cases it does, but it should not.
Let's say you murder someone, are you insane or just plain evil, which would bring another question, just how big of difference is there between insane and evil.
2007-03-05 06:08:52 · answer #8 · answered by Special Ethel 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It seems our own laws are at fault. Why is there no option for "insane but guilty"?
2007-03-05 06:15:40 · answer #9 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not knowing right from wrong. Insanity pleas are very hard to prove. But, it's not just about being "crazy." It's about not knowing the difference between right and wrong, temporary or not.
2007-03-05 06:03:27 · answer #10 · answered by Groovy 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
A few States have adopted laws that say not guilty but culpable,which allows for incarceration
2007-03-05 06:06:33 · answer #11 · answered by ohbrother 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋