3.7 million homes were burglarized each year between 2003-2007. 1 million of those burglaries a house member was present. 266,500 they became violent, either the owner had a gun in defense, or the burglar had a gun. How do the culprits get away with doing a crime like burglary? It can relate to duress, that you were forced to rob or vandalise something, or a loved one was going to get hurt. Others are too insane, they don’t know right and wrong. Such as McNaughten Rule, could be if they have a mental defect. These circumstances are justified for not taking responsibility for an unlawful act.
As long as the act isn’t murder, you can claim duress. Duress is when a person is forced to commit a crime, if not something of theirs will get hurt. For …show more content…
Not for the best, since he assassinated a prime minister Sir Robert Peel. McNaughten was very delusional and displayed symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. Instead of going to jail for murder, he was sent to a psychiatric institution. He stayed there until he died. The reason McNaughten got away with murder was because, the court acquitted his charges for being insane. This would later be known as McNaughten rule, helping people that don’t understand right or wrong. Today we have an irresistible impulse test. It 's the standard for insanity, it tests if the defendant has a mental disorder or defect. Also, if they cannot control their behavior. With this ruling, it doesn’t let you roam free in society, but you go to an institution. One rule that is too broad was the Durham rule. It helped with many mentally diseased people. Instead it was abused by criminals who would rule their addiction to alcohol, or drug addiction. Instead of helping the people who couldn’t comprehend right or wrong, it gave a loophole for many …show more content…
They don’t go to jail and not get the treatment they need. Although they are acquitted of their charges, they go to psychiatric treatment. I do agree that if you do not know right from wrong, how can you take responsibility for an action. Over the years there have been new rules were put into place like American Law Institute Rule (ALI). ALI is a new standard for insanity, that sees if the defendant lacked responsibility for the criminal act. These rules instead of helping the ones that need it for circumstances, have been loopholes for criminals. To stop criminals from using any rule they created “guilty but mentally ill” in 1976. This was a great way to stop criminals who wanted to perceive as mentally ill. If you were found guilty but mentally ill, you would receive psychiatric care while being incarcerated.
While there are many reasons to commit unlawful actions. Such as speeding, to even robbing your neighbor. Duress if one can prove the necessity of the crime, they can be excused of the crime. When one has a mental defect and doesn’t understand right from wrong. They should receive their treatment, but instead of being incarcerated be put into a mental
As long as the act isn’t murder, you can claim duress. Duress is when a person is forced to commit a crime, if not something of theirs will get hurt. For …show more content…
Not for the best, since he assassinated a prime minister Sir Robert Peel. McNaughten was very delusional and displayed symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. Instead of going to jail for murder, he was sent to a psychiatric institution. He stayed there until he died. The reason McNaughten got away with murder was because, the court acquitted his charges for being insane. This would later be known as McNaughten rule, helping people that don’t understand right or wrong. Today we have an irresistible impulse test. It 's the standard for insanity, it tests if the defendant has a mental disorder or defect. Also, if they cannot control their behavior. With this ruling, it doesn’t let you roam free in society, but you go to an institution. One rule that is too broad was the Durham rule. It helped with many mentally diseased people. Instead it was abused by criminals who would rule their addiction to alcohol, or drug addiction. Instead of helping the people who couldn’t comprehend right or wrong, it gave a loophole for many …show more content…
They don’t go to jail and not get the treatment they need. Although they are acquitted of their charges, they go to psychiatric treatment. I do agree that if you do not know right from wrong, how can you take responsibility for an action. Over the years there have been new rules were put into place like American Law Institute Rule (ALI). ALI is a new standard for insanity, that sees if the defendant lacked responsibility for the criminal act. These rules instead of helping the ones that need it for circumstances, have been loopholes for criminals. To stop criminals from using any rule they created “guilty but mentally ill” in 1976. This was a great way to stop criminals who wanted to perceive as mentally ill. If you were found guilty but mentally ill, you would receive psychiatric care while being incarcerated.
While there are many reasons to commit unlawful actions. Such as speeding, to even robbing your neighbor. Duress if one can prove the necessity of the crime, they can be excused of the crime. When one has a mental defect and doesn’t understand right from wrong. They should receive their treatment, but instead of being incarcerated be put into a mental