Insanity Defense
When a crime is committed the person responsible must enter a plea of guilty or not guilty, but what does it mean to enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity? Entering into a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is claiming that you cannot be held responsible for the crime committed due to the fact that you were mentally unstable when it occurred. In other words, saying that you literally went insane (FindLaw). In cases such as these it is very possible to still be found guilty but a person’s punishment could be lesser than simply being found just “guilty.”
A person is not able to just enter this type of plea if they please, there is much more to the process than that. For instance, the defendant must prove …show more content…
One of the tests is called M’Naghten Rule, before this rule ever existed, Stephanie Lee writes that Ancient Hebrew laws said, “idiots, lunatics and children are unable to tell the difference between good and evil thus relieving them of responsibility for their actions” (Garrison, 1998). However; this all changed in 1843 when a man named Daniel M’Naghten was acquitted of all charges when he attempted to kill the Prime Minister of England. The Queen as well as the public, was outraged which in turn caused a judge of the Central Criminal Court to specifically define what “insanity” really was furthermore in the eyes of the court. The rule specifically …show more content…
The previous test I explained was to confirm if a person knew wrong from right, The Irresistible Impulse Test is to find if the person was able to control their impulses during an act of crime (FindLaw). Meaning that due to a mental disease a person loses the understanding of right and wrong, attempting to show a person was not in control of what they were doing making them not responsible for their actions.
An article written by Albert Hauer in the Marquette Law Review describes a case where a man’s defense was based off of the Irresistible Impulse Test. Over 60 years ago, James Simecek was charged with first degree murder of a woman and her three children. The crime he had committed consisted of shooting, stabbing, beating them, then setting their house on fire. James entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity stating that he couldn’t control his impulses because of his epileptic
When a crime is committed the person responsible must enter a plea of guilty or not guilty, but what does it mean to enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity? Entering into a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is claiming that you cannot be held responsible for the crime committed due to the fact that you were mentally unstable when it occurred. In other words, saying that you literally went insane (FindLaw). In cases such as these it is very possible to still be found guilty but a person’s punishment could be lesser than simply being found just “guilty.”
A person is not able to just enter this type of plea if they please, there is much more to the process than that. For instance, the defendant must prove …show more content…
One of the tests is called M’Naghten Rule, before this rule ever existed, Stephanie Lee writes that Ancient Hebrew laws said, “idiots, lunatics and children are unable to tell the difference between good and evil thus relieving them of responsibility for their actions” (Garrison, 1998). However; this all changed in 1843 when a man named Daniel M’Naghten was acquitted of all charges when he attempted to kill the Prime Minister of England. The Queen as well as the public, was outraged which in turn caused a judge of the Central Criminal Court to specifically define what “insanity” really was furthermore in the eyes of the court. The rule specifically …show more content…
The previous test I explained was to confirm if a person knew wrong from right, The Irresistible Impulse Test is to find if the person was able to control their impulses during an act of crime (FindLaw). Meaning that due to a mental disease a person loses the understanding of right and wrong, attempting to show a person was not in control of what they were doing making them not responsible for their actions.
An article written by Albert Hauer in the Marquette Law Review describes a case where a man’s defense was based off of the Irresistible Impulse Test. Over 60 years ago, James Simecek was charged with first degree murder of a woman and her three children. The crime he had committed consisted of shooting, stabbing, beating them, then setting their house on fire. James entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity stating that he couldn’t control his impulses because of his epileptic