Psy 270 Mind Over Matter Paper
CheckPoint: Mind over Matter
PSY/270
June 5, 2013
Dean Marzofka
Mind over Matter
Questions:
1. What is the difference between mental illness and insanity? (Hint: What is the important second prong of the McNaughten rule?)
• With mental illness an individual knows right from wrong
• With insanity an individual does not know right from wrong
• The important second prong of the M’Naghten rule says that the person must know right from wrong. Clark would have had to have known at the time of the incident that what he was doing was wrong in order for him to be guilty of intent to murder. (Gibeaut, 2006, Vol. 92)
2. The McNaughten rule cannot be used to defend the actions of a person who drinks alcohol and then …show more content…
Identify each of the following:
• Rational and guilty means that the individual was fully aware of what they did and knew it was wrong, and illegal, but did it anyway.
• Guilty but insane means that the individual knew at the time that their actions were wrong but because of their mental disorder or disease they had no control over their actions.
• Not guilty by reason of insanity means that the individual experienced a temporary moment of insanity that they could not control during which time they did something that would not normally have done. (Gibeaut, 2006, Vol. 92)
4. If you were deciding the case, how would you rule? Briefly explain your decision.
I would have to look at the facts; witnesses stated that Clark said he was going to kill a police officer. This is premeditation. He kept driving around the neighborhood blaring music; I wonder what his intent was behind that? Was it to draw in a policeman? Once the policeman arrived Clark claimed that “he was so crazy he thought he was shooting an alien not a police officer, and thus lacked the intent element the state needed to prove its case.” (Gibeaut, 2006, Vol. 92) I do believe he is insane but I also believe he knew at the time what he was doing. He wanted to kill a police officer so he did. I also believe that this case warrants a jury trial. If for some reason he does not pass the competency hearing and is deemed not competent enough to stand trial, then he should be convicted by reason of insanity
PSY/270
June 5, 2013
Dean Marzofka
Mind over Matter
Questions:
1. What is the difference between mental illness and insanity? (Hint: What is the important second prong of the McNaughten rule?)
• With mental illness an individual knows right from wrong
• With insanity an individual does not know right from wrong
• The important second prong of the M’Naghten rule says that the person must know right from wrong. Clark would have had to have known at the time of the incident that what he was doing was wrong in order for him to be guilty of intent to murder. (Gibeaut, 2006, Vol. 92)
2. The McNaughten rule cannot be used to defend the actions of a person who drinks alcohol and then …show more content…
Identify each of the following:
• Rational and guilty means that the individual was fully aware of what they did and knew it was wrong, and illegal, but did it anyway.
• Guilty but insane means that the individual knew at the time that their actions were wrong but because of their mental disorder or disease they had no control over their actions.
• Not guilty by reason of insanity means that the individual experienced a temporary moment of insanity that they could not control during which time they did something that would not normally have done. (Gibeaut, 2006, Vol. 92)
4. If you were deciding the case, how would you rule? Briefly explain your decision.
I would have to look at the facts; witnesses stated that Clark said he was going to kill a police officer. This is premeditation. He kept driving around the neighborhood blaring music; I wonder what his intent was behind that? Was it to draw in a policeman? Once the policeman arrived Clark claimed that “he was so crazy he thought he was shooting an alien not a police officer, and thus lacked the intent element the state needed to prove its case.” (Gibeaut, 2006, Vol. 92) I do believe he is insane but I also believe he knew at the time what he was doing. He wanted to kill a police officer so he did. I also believe that this case warrants a jury trial. If for some reason he does not pass the competency hearing and is deemed not competent enough to stand trial, then he should be convicted by reason of insanity