Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Psychology The Insanity Defense The Insanity Defense What is insanity? When is a person considered insane? What should society do if an “insane” person commits a felony? These questions have perplexed society for many years. What the insanity defense does, is try to give these people a fair trial. At least in extreme cases, people agree with this principle. The problem is where do we draw the line. Under what circumstances is a person considered insane, and when are they not? One important point that you must understand is that the crime itself, no matter how atrocious, does not demonstrate insanity. Ever since this had become a major issue within the boundaries of the legal system, lawyers, physicians, and psychologist have long struggled to establish a clear and acceptable definition of insanity. Insanity is a legal term, not a psychological or medical one. One of the oldest, and perhaps the most famous definitions of the term insanity was the M’Naghten rule, written in Britain in 1843. To be regarded as insane under the M’Naghten rule, people must be so disordered that they do not realize they are committing a criminal act. Under the Durham rule, established in 1954, stated that a defendant is not criminally responsible if the activity was “a product of mental disease or defect.” Then, in the 1950s, the Model Penal Code was written to clarify the definition of insanity. It stated that: A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct or to confirm his conduct to the requirements of law. (Shapiro, 1985) The insanity plea is raised in no more than two percent of felony cases and the defense is rarely successful when the question is contested in a jury trial. If the defendant is clearly out of touch with reality, the police and district attorney ordinarily agree to bypass the trial and let the defendant enter a mental hospital. On the other hand, if the defendant has no serious signs of mental illness, the defense attorneys will not attempt an insanity defense. This is because they know the juries are reluctant to accept it. Basically, the only way for a lawyer to prove his client’s insanity is to try to project what his client was thinking (or not thinking) at the time that the felony was committed. This is best done by listening to the testimonies of different psychologists and psychiatrists who are called “expert witnesses.” The trouble with the insanity defense in recent years is the assumption that virtually all criminals have some sort of mental problem. If a criminal could possibly commit such a heinous crime with calm and rational deliberation, would that individual not be the most insane and dangerous of all? It is very difficult to set a certain standard these days. It is almost a matter of “taste.” In my opinion, I do believe the insanity defense should remain in action. I do believe it causes a lot of problems and controversy in the judicial system but at the same time it allows mentally challenged individuals the option of a fair trial. If a person is found insane, I do believe that he or she deserves to be put in a mental hospital instead of a prison. However, I do think that the mental hospitals are becoming a little to lenient and anxious to finding their patients sane and letting them free. On the other hand, studies have been conducted on mental hospitals and prisons. What they have found is that their is not in incredible difference between the two. The whole reason for having mental hospitals is to rehabilitate these mentally unstable felons so they can be released into society as fully functioning individuals. It is my belief that if these hospital environments are not “up to par” then they will certainly not be able to perform their duty. In that sense, the insanity defense is unreliable. Mentally insane felons do deserve some special treatment as opposed to “regular” felons. But, when you look at it from the point of view of society, their still needs to be some sort of control or moderation of the individuals who have been released from the mental hospitals. That seems to be one of the main concerns of the issue as a whole. So, I guess what I am trying to say is that I think the insanity defense is a great part of our court system if it is in complete working order and performing its “responsibilities” as a correctional system. Otherwise it is useless to have and all it would provide is a false sense of security. Bibliography: Word Count: 791
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.