Does the insanity defense work or does it need to be reformed? The criminal law states that, “A person can only be held responsible for their actions if they have freely chosen them, rather than had them determined by forces beyond their control” (D. Emer, PowerPoint Presentation, October 19,2016). The insanity defense is an affirmative defense, meaning the defendant admits guilt but request their illness remove their legal responsibility. When determining inanity, experts must use retrospective judgement, in which they evaluate a defendant’s mental state at the time the crime was committed. To successfully plead insanity, a defendant must demonstrate that they cannot be held liable due to their mental status. To do this, they must show three
…show more content…
This is because of many reasons. First, it is a violation of the defendant’s due process, which is a guarantee that the judicial process will be fair and the trial impartial (Huss, 304). According to Harrison, violating due process would mean that a defendant is being denied the right to submit evidence of a mental insanity and the court is refusing to consider such evidence during trial. This evidence could prove that a defendant did not have the criminal intent to carry out the crime (Harrison, 587). This is important because, for a defendant to use the insanity defense, they must successfully prove that they did not know right from wrong and what the consequences of their actions would be when they committed the crime; and that they did not have control over their physical actions. Therefore, they could not have criminal intent, a pre-planned notion to carry out the crime. If this can be successfully proved, then a defendant would be found not guilty by reason of insanity (D. Emer, PowerPoint presentation, October, 19 2016). Next, per Morse and Richard, “…fundamental fairness and the due process clause require an insanity defense” (Morse, Richard, 490). Morse and Richard are saying that without this defense, those individuals suffering from a mental illness would not receive fair treatment in the legal system. Finally, even those who oppose the defense cannot deny that it is unfair to punish someone who is …show more content…
According to Morse and Richard, “some form of an insanity defense is a matter of fundamental fairness in a just society. It gives doctrinal expression to fundamental moral and legal principles that have been recognized by the common law for centuries and that the supreme court has repeatedly acknowledged (Morse, Richard, 488). Also, the insanity defense has been in the law since the 14th century and almost all state and federal law makers still agree on its importance today (Morse, Richard,
This is because of many reasons. First, it is a violation of the defendant’s due process, which is a guarantee that the judicial process will be fair and the trial impartial (Huss, 304). According to Harrison, violating due process would mean that a defendant is being denied the right to submit evidence of a mental insanity and the court is refusing to consider such evidence during trial. This evidence could prove that a defendant did not have the criminal intent to carry out the crime (Harrison, 587). This is important because, for a defendant to use the insanity defense, they must successfully prove that they did not know right from wrong and what the consequences of their actions would be when they committed the crime; and that they did not have control over their physical actions. Therefore, they could not have criminal intent, a pre-planned notion to carry out the crime. If this can be successfully proved, then a defendant would be found not guilty by reason of insanity (D. Emer, PowerPoint presentation, October, 19 2016). Next, per Morse and Richard, “…fundamental fairness and the due process clause require an insanity defense” (Morse, Richard, 490). Morse and Richard are saying that without this defense, those individuals suffering from a mental illness would not receive fair treatment in the legal system. Finally, even those who oppose the defense cannot deny that it is unfair to punish someone who is …show more content…
According to Morse and Richard, “some form of an insanity defense is a matter of fundamental fairness in a just society. It gives doctrinal expression to fundamental moral and legal principles that have been recognized by the common law for centuries and that the supreme court has repeatedly acknowledged (Morse, Richard, 488). Also, the insanity defense has been in the law since the 14th century and almost all state and federal law makers still agree on its importance today (Morse, Richard,