why are people allowed to plead insanity in court?

Question

obviously no "sane" person would commit a murder. so why are you allowed to plead insanity to a crime? if you get convicted and you plead insanity all you have to do is go to an institution until you are "cured" how do you know when a person is cured from insanity? how can you insure they will not kill again. i think it is ridiculous people are allowed to plead this way and basically get away with murder. no matter what your state of mind it doesn't change the fact you took a life. that would be like being allowed to kill someone because you are drunk or under the influence of drugs. both of those are mind altering. i would like to know your opinion. for or against? and why? thank you


nothing rude please.

Answer 1

Pleading insanity, and being found insane is two different things. It is the attorney who enters the plea, not the criminal. It is only a defense tactic. You state, "obviously, no sane person would commit a murder". Now, obviously, you are going by your standards. The frightening fact is that a lot of criminals feel they have not done anything wrong.

Answer 2

Personally I don't agree that no 'sane' person would commit murder, as there are a number of cases that have seen to push your average person to do it, and no im not in any way condoning it.
People are allowed to plead it because thats the approach the courts have decided to follow- not to just see the fact that a person has committed an offence end of, but to look at why they committed it.
It is not that easy to plead either, there is a test of 3 elements that must be proven to apply to the defendant for it to work(well in English courts there are);
1- a 'defect of reason' this basically means a persons powers of reasoning are impaired. So if a person is capable of reasoning and simply chooses not to he/she will be guilty.
2- a 'disease of the mind' this is a mental or physical disease which affects the mind
3- this must cause the defendant not to know the nature and quality of his act or not to know he was doing wrong.

Unless all 3 are proven a person cannot use this defence, with regards to murder yeah this gets them a slightly lesser sentence for voluntary manslaughter instead but im not sure how this can be much of an advantage- they're still doing the time and they're not being 'allowed' to kill someone as you put it.
Pleading insanity goes down on your record, and if it works it can have a really detrimental effect on other things you pursue after your sentence- namely a job.
Secondly if they go to an institution a psychologist is there to determine whether or not they are fit for release into the normal prisons to finish their sentence. People are generally not cured from insanity, instead they are treated for the kind of insanity that affects them.
Another point, intoxication can be a defence for murder but it rarely works- the difference is that it usually self-induced.

Sorry i've written a mini- or not so mini-essay! it's just that this whole area, well the law in general isn't a simple as black and white.

Answer 3

Assuming you actually WANT the answer, here it is:

First, MOST crimes consist of 2 critical parts. First is "actus reas" or the guilty act. This is what most of us think of when we think about crime, that a wrongful act occurred. The SECOND part of a crime, however, is what the NGRI verdict is relevant to. That second part is "mens rea" or guilty mind. This does NOT mean that the offender feels guilty about what he/she did. It means that the actor had to have the requisite mental state in order for the crime to have been committed. The definitions of requisite mental state will vary by jurisdiction, but it does NOT equate with the standard idea of "crazy" as you use it in characterizing these people. It has more to do with knowing the difference between right and wrong and/or being able to control one's actions even if knowledgeable about right/wrong. Now, here is the important part to understand why the verdict is "not guilty by reason of insanity." If BOTH actus reus and mens rea are not present, THEN A CRIME DID NOT OCCUR. This does not mean the ACT did not occur, rather that the CRIME (which requires BOTH aspects) did not occur. This is why the verdict is "not guilty."

As for the ultimate outcome, however, you are mistaken that these people "get off." What happens in actuality is that someone found NGRI is incarcerated in a secure mental health facility until such time as they can show they are no longer a threat to society. In point of fact, many of these people end up serving longer time in the mental facility than they would have had they been found guilty of the crime they are accused of!

Some jurisidictions have recognized the psychological dissatisfaction that the general public has with the NGRI verdict and have changed their verdicts to "guilty, but mentally ill." Interestingly, while public satisfaction with the verdict has risen, the outcome that the defendant goes through is no different than had they been found NGRI, with the exception that they now have a conviction on their record. If you care more about outcome than the label, it doesn't matter what they call it.

BTW, the insanity defense is used extremely rarely and is "successful" even less often. Conservative estimates put its use at about 1-3% of all criminal trials and its success at about 1% of those. The reason we THINK it is used a lot and successful is that whenever it is used and successful it is usually for some horrific crime and it makes all the news. So it is easy for us to recall the incident. This is called the availability heuristic -- we overestimate the occurrence of something based on how "available" an occurrence of it happening is in our memory. If you don't believe me, research it yourself.

Answer 4

Contrary to popular belief, people do not plead insanity and get away with murder. Of course there have been cases in the media of outrageous insanity defenses but that is why they are in the media, they are the exception not the norm. In response to this, some states (mine included) now allow jurors to return a verdict of guilty but mentally ill. The practical effect of such a verdict is that the person goes to prison with a mentally ill tag.

The offense of murder, as with all criminal offenses, is comprised of elements. One of those elements is the intent to kill. If someone has a legitimate mental defect that negates that intent to kill, that is a factor that may reduce the person's culpability. We can have a legitimate debate about whether this is good public policy or not, but that is for another day. First, it is important to understand the rules and then maybe we can debate them.

Lets take the example of murder that you pose. If I am driving down the street and I hit a pedestrian and kill that pedestrian, is that murder? What if you later find out that the pedestrian was sleeping with my wife? It is the same set of facts and the only difference is my mental state. If the pedestrian is sleeping with my wife then it is likely my hitting that person was intentional.

Conversely, lets assume that I point a gun at a man on the street and I pull the trigger. Is that murder? What if he was pointing a gun at me and asking for my wallet? What if, through a legitimate mental defect (proof of the mental disease or defect is a separate issue also), I believed that he posed an imminent threat to my life? Does that negate my intent to kill him?

It is not always black and white. There are people who truly are mentally ill. Nonetheless, the majority of those who are charged with the crime of murder in this country are convicted. There is not a club of thousands of murderers who have gotten away with it through the twinkie defense as you may believe if you simply read the press.

Answer 5

It's not obvious that no sane person would commit murder. I agree that the commission of a murder is strong evidence that the perp is mentally ill. What you're missing is that sanity is a legal concept, not a diagnosis. The insanity defense in the common law world traces its origins to the case of Reg. v. McNaughton, in which the defendant was held to have a defense of insanity if, and only if, he could demonstrate that his mental illness was of such character that he could not appreciate the nature of his act (i.e., he really thought he was discharging his weapon at a game bird) or could not distinguish right from wrong.

The rule has been liberalized during the 20th century, because it is thought barbaric to execute someone because of a medically-demonstrable disease. It is also thought barbaric to execute someone who is mentally ill at the time of execution, but that's another consideration entirely.

The common law sees a wide gradation in homicide. It is not like shari'a, wherein if your great grandfather killed my great gramdfather in self-defense, I am obliged to kill you and your descendants. The law is so refined that even a person who drinks himself into a stupor before returning to the bar and shooting the fellow that he thinks dissed him can plead that he was so intoxicated that he could not form the requisite mental state to commit murder.

You see, the law depends on more than the objective act.. Sometimes, the mental state is critical to the question of guilt or innocence. It makes the difference between First Degree Murder (with malice aforethought), Second Degree Murder (unpremeditated murder), Voluntary Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter, and Criminally Negligent Homicide. It would be simpler to say, Defendant killed my father, so judge, if you don't kill him, I will kill him, and I don't care why he killed my Da, this defendant must die!

Do you understand now why there is an insanity defense?

Answer 6

Not true sadly to say. Many murders are committed for greed, revenge, jealousy etc... without regard to human life. Unfortunately justice in the US has been subjected to trickery on insanity pleas but there are legitimate cases of temporary insanity during the commission of a murder or assault. There are also times temporary insanity is not ruled when it clearly should be. True life example; I know a man who was sentenced to 20-40 years for 2nd degree murder in Michigan for killing a coworker with his bear hands. His coworkers all knew he was deathly afraid of snakes. While working on a crew installing cyclone fence a fellow coworker thought he would play a joke on the man who feared snakes. The prankster picked up a rather large "Blue Racer" snake and threw it at the man. Witnesses said that the snake landed on and wrapped around the man's neck. Witnesses described the following; When the snake wrapped around the man's neck the man froze with blank expression. He walked to the man who through the snake and broke his neck. Family, friends and fellow coworkers said the man charged with murder had never displayed violent tendencies toward anyone and in fact he had never been in jail for any offense his whole life. The man charged had a 6 month baby and young wife who also claimed her husband loved being a dad and husband and never exhibited this kind of behavior.
Unfortunately for him, in my opinion, he was not able to afford justice and became another statistic/victim of a flawed judicial system.
Yes, it was tragic however, in lieu of the facts surrounding this situation justice was not served rather justice facilitated an equally tragic event.

***Even with the flaws I think the US judicial system is the best in the world hands down.

Answer 7

Insanity is not a psychological term. It is a legal term which only a court can apply. By law, insanity can include not only psychosis, but jealous rage, mental retardation, and a wide variety of other conditions in which a person might not be able to control his or her behavior or distinguish right from wrong. Legally, a crime requires 2 elements: an illegal act and the intent to commit the act. No one wants to give up the legal element of intent. But you can see why this leaves the door open for the plea of insanity. This defense occurs in only about 2 of 1,000 criminal cases and of this number, only a fraction are successful. Most do not occur in murder cases.

Answer 8

the thing with the insanity plea is that when you are declared mentally incompetent for trial, they stick you in a place for the criminally insane. until as such time you are deemed fit to stand trial, then you are put on trial for your actions. there are three parts to a crime. means(ability), motive(desire) and opportunity. if you have no motive, then you cannot have a crime. but in this case as a persons life was taken, the punishment has to be there. it does no one any good to charge a guy for murder cause he was fending off the devil( so he thought) and hit a person in the head on accident. it would be better for him to get the pysc help he needs.

Answer 9

In observing a court proceeding where the defendant was charged with 'Willful sexual assault on a 13yr. old girl, when the judge asked the defendant how he pleas, he says he pleas insanity. The judge in confusion retorts, insanity. The defendant replies again, insanity and then adds, ya I'm just crazy about those kind of things!

Answer 10

You sound extremely young and immature, at least you were 9 years ago when you asked this question. Hope you see the world more realistically now.