Who Is The Verdict Of Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity

| Nuts | Reaction Paper #1 | | Teresa Chambliss | 2/4/2012 |

The movie “Nuts” starring Barbara Streisand and Richard Dreyfuss was a great movie depicting a woman fighting in court to prove that she is competent enough to stand trial. Barbara Streisand (Claudia Draper) plays a call girl charged with first degree manslaughter. It is Richard Dreyfuss’ (public defender) job to help Claudia prove that she is sane enough to go to trial. Claudia has a very short temper, outspoken, and doesn’t trust anyone. She violently attacked her first attorney for merely trying to advise her that the best thing for her would be to be labeled incompetent to stand trial. Claudia is evaluated by two psychiatrist who both state that she is incompetent
You are considered insane if a mental disorder stops you from managing matters or obeying the law. John Hinckley’s verdict of Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity created a big commotion among the public. Many felt that the verdict was being used as a means for criminals to avoid their prison sentence, and to await their time in a prison facility (Simon, and Aaronson, 1988). There needs to be evaluations given to the defendant by qualified psychiatrist to see if there is in fact “a disease of the mind”. During the movie, Claudia was evaluated by two psychiatrists. Their findings were that Claudia needed to be in a mental facility because of several mental health issues, but failed to state that she did not know that the killing was wrong. There also seemed to be a difference in the evaluations, because one psychiatrist only evaluated her for 15 minutes, and refused to testify in
They can testify if the experts scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, if the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, if the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and if the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. If the witness is depending on his experience and his experience only, then they should be able to make clear on how their experience coincides with the conclusion that they have come, why that experience is good enough for their conclusion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts (Legal Information Institute, 1992). The expert testimonies for the two psychiatrists in the movie failed to mention how their experience was satisfactorily applied to the facts of the case. I believe that they thought there was a mental disorder, but she did not fit the category of the M’Naghten rule because she knew the difference between right and