![]() Colin FergusonĬolin Ferguson was convicted in March 1995 for crimes associated with a massacre in Long Island, New York, on December 7, 1993. Under that test, the insanity defense was available to a person who was "totally deprived of his understanding and memory so as not to know what he doing, no more than an infant, a brute, or a wild beast" (Feigl 1995, 161). By the eighteenth century, the complete madness definition had evolved into the "wild beast" test. "Complete madness" was first established as a defense to criminal charges by the common-law courts in late-thirteenth-century England. Even if evidence of insanity does not win a verdict of not guilty, the sentencing court may consider it as a mitigating factor. In other states, the defense is either accepted or rejected in the verdict of the judge or jury. In some states, sanity is determined by the judge or jury in a separate proceeding following the determination of guilt or innocence at trial. When invoking insanity as a defense, a defendant is required to notify the prosecution. Sufficient evidence invariably includes Expert Testimony by psychologists and psychiatrists. The judge may issue this instruction if the defendant has produced sufficient evidence at trial to justify the theory. Generally, the defense is available to a criminal defendant if the judge instructs the jury that it may consider whether the defendant was insane when the crime was committed. Most states regulate the defense with statutes, but a few states allow the courts to craft the rules for its proper use. The insanity defense reflects the generally accepted notion that persons who cannot appreciate the consequences of their actions should not be punished for criminal acts. But if a person is acquitted by reason of insanity, execution is not an option. 2d 335 (2002) that the execution of mentally retarded criminals constituted "cruel and unusual punishment" and that it was prohibited by Eighth Amendment. Persons who are incompetent to stand trial are held in a mental institution until they are considered capable of participating in the proceedings.The insanity defense also should be kept separate from issues concerning mental retardation. The insanity defense should not be confused with Incompetency. Very few states allow the volitional insanity defense. If an otherwise conscientious and law-abiding mother shoots the perpetrator, the mother may argue that she was so enraged that she became mentally ill and incapable of exerting self-control. For example, suppose that a child has been brutally assaulted. This defense is common in crimes of vengeance. A defense of irresistible impulse asserts that the defendant, although able to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the act, suffered from a mental disease or defect that made him or her incapable of controlling her or his actions. The vast majority of states allow criminal defendants to invoke the cognitive insanity defense.Īnother form of the insanity defense is volitional insanity, or Irresistible Impulse. Under the test for cognitive insanity, a defendant must have been so impaired by a mental disease or defect at the time of the act that he or she did not know the nature or quality of the act, or, if the defendant did know the nature or quality of the act, he or she did not know that the act was wrong. The most common variation is cognitive insanity. The insanity defense is used by criminal defendants. The justices that day heard attorneys debate whether a state can abolish the insanity defense.A defense asserted by an accused in a criminal prosecution to avoid liability for the commission of a crime because, at the time of the crime, the person did not appreciate the nature or quality or wrongfulness of the acts. 7 in hopes of hearing arguments at the start of the court's fall term. But other experts and crime victims' groups say the Constitution allows states to establish their own criminal laws. Many legal experts say the Kansas law - and similar ones in three other states - violate legal precedents and moral norms. A Kansas man facing the death penalty in a quadruple homicide says a state law abolishing the insanity defense unconstitutionally prevented him from arguing that his actions were the result of his mental illness. The issue at stake in the Supreme Court case is whether a state that abolishes the insanity defense is violating the U.S. But critics say the insanity defense is often a “get-out-of-jail” card that enables criminals to avoid punishment. Supporters of the insanity defense say such individuals need psychiatric treatment, not imprisonment. Supreme Court is looking anew at the insanity defense, a centuries-old legal doctrine, which holds that some mentally ill defendants do not know right from wrong and cannot be held responsible for their crimes.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |