Insanity Defense
Insanity defense is a form of defense by excuse used in a criminal case. In this instance, the defense team always argues that the defendant was not accountable for their illegal activities because of episodic or chronic psychiatric condition at the time the crime was committed (Brooks 1184). Following the recent conflicts surrounding the insanity defense, the Connecticut Law Revision Commission was compelled to investigate legal and psychiatric issues, particularly the duties of psychoanalysts in the court of law (Brooks 1188). Even before the incident of John W. Hinckley, a man who was suspected to have assassinated President Reagan, there had been very many cases of insanity defense that had turned to be successful in favor of the defendant caused community concern hence leading to a legislative change of the verdict “not guilty by reason of insanity” to the legally complacent but supposedly reasonable “guilty but not criminally responsible.”
The people who are pronounced insane by the courts were considered not to be able to imagine their affairs, enter into meaningful contracts and irresponsible for their actions. The insanity defense does always use the two fundamental elements of the crime, actus rea or the evil act and mens rea, or evil intent to prove their case (Brooks 1189). All of the attempts which have been made to prevent the psychiatrist from making conclusion-based statements have always ended up in the constitution-based prerogatives of the defendant will allow for all of the evidence which may support an acquittal. It therefore very unfortunate that in all of the cases in which there is the presence of the divided opinion in regards to insanity, the public is always irritated by the psychiatrists, but not by the legal system which allows for such argumentative strategies (Brooks 1192). The general public has, therefore, a feeling that the application of the insanity insane is widely used, not only in the United States of America but the whole world as an escape mechanism from charges related to the crimes which they had committed.
Work Cited
Brooks, Scott. "Guilty By Reason Of Insanity: Why A Maligned Defense Demands A Constitutional Right Of Inquiry On Voir Dire." Insanity Defense, volume 20, no. 4, 2013, pp. 1183-1218.
Academic levels
Skills
Paper formats
Urgency types
Assignment types
Prices that are easy on your wallet
Our experts are ready to do an excellent job starting at $14.99 per page
We at GrabMyEssay.com
work according to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which means you have the control over your personal data. All payment transactions go through a secure online payment system, thus your Billing information is not stored, saved or available to the Company in any way. Additionally, we guarantee confidentiality and anonymity all throughout your cooperation with our Company.