Don't you think anyone who commits a violent criminal act to be 'not of right mind' at the time of the offense, therefore nullifying the defense?
2007-06-18 16:55:43 · 8 answers · asked by gldnsilnc 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I agree. I think that at least 90% of criminals have some type of mental illness everything from bipolar, adhd,to sziophrenia, personality disorders,or insanity brought on by drug use.
And I agree that a very good lawyer could argue that many criminals were not in their right mind if they knew they could not prove the person was innocent, they will argue, Oh he did this but he was insane at the time.
Of course they are guilty anyway.
2007-06-18 18:34:19 · answer #1 · answered by inzaratha 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The insanity defense is very difficult to prove. One must be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time the offense is committed. It is not enough to be medically insane, one must meet the legal definition, which is much more stringent. State of mind may be a mitigating factor as to culpability, but innocent by virtue of insanity is rare. More often you will see, guilty but insane, Each state has different rules and interpretations governing this defense. In some jurisdictions if someone is guilty but insane, they are first "cured" then they serve their sentence. If they are never cured, they remain forever in the criminal wing of the institution they are committed to.
2007-06-19 00:11:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that it is. If the person is as you say, "not right of mind" at the time of the crime. Then afterword, lets say at the time of a trial, are perfectly sane, it isn't. I don't think it is possible for a person to be teporarily insane at one point in time the a few months down the road, be perfectly sane. But I do, however, believe the if a person that truly has a mental disorder, such as scizofrenia, for example, could justifiably use the insanity plea. Because they truly don't know what they are doing. And in my opinion can't always be held accountable for their actions. But there are some cases that they could. For example if they have medicine for their problem and refuse to take it, then in that case they could be.
2007-06-19 00:10:40 · answer #3 · answered by anyone21 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion, no, but I believe it is over used.
There's no gray area between violently loosing ones temper and a truly insane person - neither person is innocent. The first is plainly guilty and should serve the time, the latter is guilty by reason of insanity, not innocent by reason of insanity.
I have no problem with giving an insane person the help he needs in a confined environment rather than prison time.
2007-06-19 00:07:46 · answer #4 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If they are insane, it's valid. Otherwise, it's just a joke.
2007-06-19 00:03:10 · answer #5 · answered by Queenie knows it all. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I doubly agree with LeAnne.
2007-06-19 00:10:12 · answer #6 · answered by krneel128 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not! It's a bunch of bullshit. If one has the capacity to do the crime then they have the capacity to do the time.
2007-06-19 00:12:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
NO
2007-06-19 00:07:40 · answer #8 · answered by WilljClinton 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋