"Insanity" Defense in court?

Question

How do you all feel about the "insanity" defense? If someone is not aware of the moral implications of their crime does they mean they should walk away from any legal punishment? Should they be placed in special needs prison? What do you think about this problem

Answer 1

Most states do not draw the line at understanding the moral implications, since morality is subjective.

The line is drawn either at not understanding what you are doing (unaware of the nature and consequence of the act) or being unable to control your actions (making the action involuntary). Those are specific medical/psychological lines.

In very few states, someone who cannot evaluate any conduct relative to legal standards of right/wrong may also be considered insane. But that is more than just being unable to evaluate the moral consequence of one particular crime.

And even if the person is acquitted on insanity grounds, they remain in custody until they are determined to be no longer a threat to anyone. So, it's not really "walking away". The period of commitment may even end up being longer than the actual sentence would have been for the underlying crime.

Answer 2

First of all, insanity is an affirmative defense, meaning that you have to prove that you were insane, rather than just casting doubt on what the prosecution says. This is a very difficult hurdle to cross.

Insanity defenses can be countered if the perpetrator made any effort to cover up the crime or was premeditated in planning the crime. That rules out about 99% of insanity pleas.

A genuinely insane person, with respect to the legal definition, is truly not reponsible for their actions. A psychotic person who willingly neglects to take medication, however, is responsible because he was sane when he decided not to take it. A person who was hit in the head, for instance, and becomes psychotic, is not responsible.

Persons who are an ongoing danger to society, regardless of therapy or medication, can be locked up. Persons who fit the legal definition of insane at the time of a crime, but who are not insane at the time of trial, cannot be locked up and cannot be punished. Persons who have had adverse reactions to sleep medications, like Ambien, are an example of clinically insane persons who cannot be held responsible. Some of those patients have driven cars, made phone calls, prepared meals, etc without having any recollection of doing so. Any crime that they commit during these episodes can not be charged against them because they had no knowledge beforehand that that might occur.

Insanity is a valid defense when applied honestly and should be continued within the legal system. Like I said, a person who gets hit in the head and suffers a psychosis because of it shouldn't be put in jail for life because he went crazy and killed someone. Unfortunately, in order to keep the avenue of defense open to those who genuinely qualify for it, we also leave it open for abuse. That's why it's so difficult to prove.

Answer 3

I do not believe there should be such a thing as temporary insanity.Insanity just doesn't go away, so the person guilty of the crime should just walk. If it can be psychiatrically proved that the person committing the crime is so split off from reality, not knowing right from wrong, that he should not be found criminally guilty, then he is legally insane and still must be confined. Ideally, he should receive treatment for his insanity.

Answer 4

Insane or not..........they still commited a crime. And the punishment should be the same regardless of their mental state. If you're sane, and commit a murder, the person you killed is still dead, and it's still a murder. So that person should either be put to death or put in prison for life.

If a person is a nut, and he kills someone, the person is still dead, a murder has been commited, and the person responsible for doing it is capable of doing it again. The punishment should be for the crime, not based on the person commiting the crime.

Answer 5

Why ought to Congress approve contracts to ANY organisation that had this kind of stipulation of their employment settlement in the first position? IF Congress had allowed this kind of stipulation, it will be declared unlawful and null and void. that ought to sparkling the way for Ms Jones and others to document each of the prices they had to. doesn't that be a more advantageous powerful element to do? You Liberals take 0.5 measures and say seem what we did. Now once you get the 30 Republicans on record as to why they voted adverse to we are going to manage that. What about the different 2 votes? Who were they? Why did not they vote? were they Democrat or Republican? the placement with people like you is you under no circumstances tell the completed tale.

Answer 6

it looks bad. Beware!