Insanity Defense
By Mrsblue
Apr 19, 2014
528 Words
Insanity Defense
Due to a malfunction of certain areas within a mentally deficient individual’s brain the Insanity Defense issue should be slightly altered. Reason being is simply because since they are mentally unstable they could possibly not be so cognitive to their actions. However given the fact they are human to a certain degree they have a understanding of the actions being committed. There is not an excuse for murder. There is no excuse for mangling limbs. There is no excuse for death of another person. Yet there is an excuse for Insanity Defense.
The first factor to be considered is how bad the defendant’s mental disability is in correlation to the committed offense. If there was a chart to measure the severity of the brain then it would be a more reasonable jury ruling. Without a way to detect how damaged ones brain is could mean the difference between an electric chair and a simple probation issuing. There is no way that a defendant should be let off in any circumstance. Murder is murder damaged brain or healthy brain.
Another topic of discussion is should the victim pleading insanity just be sentenced to a psychiatric facility or should the punishment be altered slightly. Simply because one pleads “not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) does not justify the action committed. An insane individual still must endure much more than just a temporary rehabilitation. Though the insane suspect could really have a mental malfunction that does not delete the life(s) he/she has taken within the course of not compensating for future consequences. To top that concrete facts should be able to support when and why the defendant started to realize that they were at a breaking point. Such things as different appetite desires, change in sleeping pattern, unusual psychotic inhibitions so on and so forth. A respectable amount of time should be dedicated in order to truly understand the thinking pattern of an insane human. In most cases states that do allow the “Insanity Defense” use The M’Naughten Rule most commonly which addresses that the defendant in question is guilty but had no understanding of the acts being committed.
Psychiatrists also play a huge part in assessing the damage of an individual’s mental incapability. By a psychologist analyzing the patient they can determine if the behavior of the crime and the insanity defense plea matches up. Just because the insane suspect states that they have a mental illness does not totally justify the means of the action committed. Without proper detection of the mentally accused then anyone could possibly say that they are insane. Criminals would have a field day addressing to the courts that they have a unstable thinking pattern and they would be released with a milder sentence for one that they truly deserve.
In conclusion the insanity defense plea should remain but be altered. One too many people can plea insanity but what justifies the true insane mind of a person. Although the judge has final ruling of the defendant statistics should ran on the person in trial perhaps before the case to see how insane one actually is.
Due to a malfunction of certain areas within a mentally deficient individual’s brain the Insanity Defense issue should be slightly altered. Reason being is simply because since they are mentally unstable they could possibly not be so cognitive to their actions. However given the fact they are human to a certain degree they have a understanding of the actions being committed. There is not an excuse for murder. There is no excuse for mangling limbs. There is no excuse for death of another person. Yet there is an excuse for Insanity Defense.
The first factor to be considered is how bad the defendant’s mental disability is in correlation to the committed offense. If there was a chart to measure the severity of the brain then it would be a more reasonable jury ruling. Without a way to detect how damaged ones brain is could mean the difference between an electric chair and a simple probation issuing. There is no way that a defendant should be let off in any circumstance. Murder is murder damaged brain or healthy brain.
Another topic of discussion is should the victim pleading insanity just be sentenced to a psychiatric facility or should the punishment be altered slightly. Simply because one pleads “not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) does not justify the action committed. An insane individual still must endure much more than just a temporary rehabilitation. Though the insane suspect could really have a mental malfunction that does not delete the life(s) he/she has taken within the course of not compensating for future consequences. To top that concrete facts should be able to support when and why the defendant started to realize that they were at a breaking point. Such things as different appetite desires, change in sleeping pattern, unusual psychotic inhibitions so on and so forth. A respectable amount of time should be dedicated in order to truly understand the thinking pattern of an insane human. In most cases states that do allow the “Insanity Defense” use The M’Naughten Rule most commonly which addresses that the defendant in question is guilty but had no understanding of the acts being committed.
Psychiatrists also play a huge part in assessing the damage of an individual’s mental incapability. By a psychologist analyzing the patient they can determine if the behavior of the crime and the insanity defense plea matches up. Just because the insane suspect states that they have a mental illness does not totally justify the means of the action committed. Without proper detection of the mentally accused then anyone could possibly say that they are insane. Criminals would have a field day addressing to the courts that they have a unstable thinking pattern and they would be released with a milder sentence for one that they truly deserve.
In conclusion the insanity defense plea should remain but be altered. One too many people can plea insanity but what justifies the true insane mind of a person. Although the judge has final ruling of the defendant statistics should ran on the person in trial perhaps before the case to see how insane one actually is.