Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity(NGRI)
Intro
The criminal justice system is utilized to punish those who violate the laws and to protect the rights of the people who abide by the laws. However, there are instances where the criminal act of an individual are not punished through imprisonment. In these instances they individual may have a mental illness, which is causing them to not understand the consequences of their actions. The law is aware of instances such as this and has created a plea of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI). In receiving this verdict, the individual will be sent to a mental health facility to be treated for their mental illness instead of being sent to prison and being punished for the criminal act. The symptoms of …show more content…
In addition, these individuals may not be able to recognize that the crime that they have committed was wrong.
- Flaws o There are several flaws to the M’Naughten rule. The basis of not knowing per the M’Naughten rule alone was weak. Not knowing that the crime committed is right or wrong could be contributed to the ignorance of the accused. The accused could be faking the fact that they did not know what they were doing was wrong. The M’Naughten rule questions the accused ability to understand the consequences moreso than the accused mental capacity in understanding the criminal act and the possible punishment for that act.
Durham Rule
- The Durham rule was later developed as an extension to the M’Naughten rule. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the 1954 Durham vs. United States case ruled that “an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or defect” (www.dorianchialant.com).
- Evidence to prove …show more content…
He was found incompetent to stand trial and admitted into a mental hospital. He was tried once he gained competence two years later. Although he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the crime, Arizona only went by the second half of the M’Naghten rule, understanding that your actions are wrong, to determine insanity. Due to this Clark did not get the insanity plea and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. An appeal hearing was held in June 2006, stating that by Arizona eliminating the first portion of the M’Naghten rule it violated Clark’s due process rights. The courts held in favor of Arizona stating that insanity standards are open to state choice (2004).
Clark vs. Arizona relevance
- It is important that the evaluating mental health professional to be aware of state standards for the insanity defense. The statues vary by state. The role of the mental health professional is to prove the mental illness of the defendant at the time of the criminal act to assist in the Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity plea.
Intro
The criminal justice system is utilized to punish those who violate the laws and to protect the rights of the people who abide by the laws. However, there are instances where the criminal act of an individual are not punished through imprisonment. In these instances they individual may have a mental illness, which is causing them to not understand the consequences of their actions. The law is aware of instances such as this and has created a plea of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI). In receiving this verdict, the individual will be sent to a mental health facility to be treated for their mental illness instead of being sent to prison and being punished for the criminal act. The symptoms of …show more content…
In addition, these individuals may not be able to recognize that the crime that they have committed was wrong.
- Flaws o There are several flaws to the M’Naughten rule. The basis of not knowing per the M’Naughten rule alone was weak. Not knowing that the crime committed is right or wrong could be contributed to the ignorance of the accused. The accused could be faking the fact that they did not know what they were doing was wrong. The M’Naughten rule questions the accused ability to understand the consequences moreso than the accused mental capacity in understanding the criminal act and the possible punishment for that act.
Durham Rule
- The Durham rule was later developed as an extension to the M’Naughten rule. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the 1954 Durham vs. United States case ruled that “an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or defect” (www.dorianchialant.com).
- Evidence to prove …show more content…
He was found incompetent to stand trial and admitted into a mental hospital. He was tried once he gained competence two years later. Although he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the crime, Arizona only went by the second half of the M’Naghten rule, understanding that your actions are wrong, to determine insanity. Due to this Clark did not get the insanity plea and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. An appeal hearing was held in June 2006, stating that by Arizona eliminating the first portion of the M’Naghten rule it violated Clark’s due process rights. The courts held in favor of Arizona stating that insanity standards are open to state choice (2004).
Clark vs. Arizona relevance
- It is important that the evaluating mental health professional to be aware of state standards for the insanity defense. The statues vary by state. The role of the mental health professional is to prove the mental illness of the defendant at the time of the criminal act to assist in the Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity plea.