Looking into the not guilty by reason of insanity or (NGIR) ruling and why or why not the ruling is an obstruction of justice in the courtroom. Many cases involve a preliminary trail to qualify the defendant as being competent enough to attend the trail and understand the verdict and why it was passed to them. The following will show some examples of why people agree and disagree with the court ruling of competency and the history of the NGIR ruling.
Mentally ill persons have been recognized since the turn of the fifteenth century in the United States of America, they recognized if a man has killed and was not of proper state of mind, lunacy or a natural fool the person did not have the competency to realize the nature of their crimes. PBS.org (2011) Front Line, A Brief History of Insanity Defense. During the 1500’s British rule created the wild beast test this test consisted of comparing the defendant to an infant or wild beast, if they could not understand the ramifications of their actions the person being examined must have the mentality of a wild beast or infant thus calling them crazy, insane, or lunacy. After their insanity was discovered, the defendant could no longer be tried in the court of law. PBS.org (2011) Front Line, A Brief History of Insanity Defense.
Daniel M‘Naghten was a wood cutter that murdered the Secretary to the Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel in 1843, M’Naghten believed that the Prime Minister was the cause of his financial down fall in a missed attempt to assassinate the Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel’s life was taken. It was ruled that if M’Naghten was not able to tell the difference between right and wrong he was considered mentally ill and not responsible for his actions.Pbs.org (2011) Front Line, A Brief History of insanity Defense.
Only one Percent of all defendant cases consider the insanity rule according to the Answers Encyclopaedia (2011), this means that most defense cases do not even use the plea of insanity. The common rule today for the insanity plea is to meet specific criteria to determine if the defendant is considered insane called the competency test. If the defendant is able to perform the following they are considered component: are able to understand his current legal situation; ability to understand the charges against him; ability to understand the facts relevant to his or her case; ability to understand the legal issues and procedures in his case; ability to understand legal defenses available in his behalf; ability to understand the dispositions, pleas, and penalties possible; ability to appraise the likely outcomes; ability to appraise the roles of defense counsel, prosecuting attorney, the judge, the jury, the witnesses, and the defendant; ability to identify and locate witnesses; ability to relate to defense counsel; ability to trust and to communicate relevantly with his counsel; ability to comprehend instructions and advice; ability to make decisions after receiving advice; ability to maintain a collaborative relationship with his attorney and to help plan legal strategy; ability to follow testimony for contradictions or errors; ability to testify relevantly and be cross-examined if necessary; ability to challenge prosecution witnesses; ability to tolerate stress at the trial and while awaiting trial; ability to refrain from irrational and unmanageable, behaviour during the trial; ability to disclose pertinent facts surrounding the alleged offense; and the ability to protect himself and to utilize the legal safeguards available to him: Green, Edie / Heilbrun, Kirk / Fortune, William H. / Nietzel, Michael T. / (2010).
Forty-eight out of fifty states have some form of insanity rule in their court system. Insanity rules mean that the defense admits to committing the crime but they cannot be tried because the defendant is not competent enough to stand trial. If the jury does not concur with the defense’s plea, the person will be tried and convicted of their offense. Sixty to seventy percent of insanity pleas are cases other than murder: Law.Jrank.org (2011) Insanity Defense. Juries find for only about twenty percent of defenses that plead guilty many insanity pleas are the result of plea-bargaining: Law.Jrank.org (2011) Insanity Defense.
An argument that can be made is the insanity plea is it a good ideal and why or why not? Throughout history people have sided with the insanity plea simply because it makes no since to punish someone for something that they do not feel sorrowful for. What is the use of punishing some one that is not capable of understanding what they did wrong? It is easier to rehabilitate the person then punish them for their crimes. Some believe that the insanity rule is a hoax created by the defense to escape spending their time in jail. Very few homicide cases use the insanity plea because it is a very hard circumstance to prove in the court of law. The reasoning behind someone committing a crime and the technique involved by their criminal act automatically proves that they are competent.
Forensic Psychiatry of the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo performed a case study concerning one hundred and four court cases using the M’Naghten standard of evaluating cases of NGRI AND NIGRIMC. They found that many of the cases came back unsure of mantle illness, as a matter of fact of the acquitted included sexual offenders the highest ratio showed that they were also repeat offenders: The Journal of Psychiatry & Law 34/Spring 2006. Another study by The Center for Forensic Psychology Ann Arbor Michigan Forensics Hospital showed out of 139 defendants that were selected to be reviewed for insanity 69% male that a whopping 79% were out of work conceding with another 73% that had been repeat offenders. These numbers show us that when the mentally ill are not able to take their medications it leads them to commit criminal acts: North Western University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1996).
Whatever the case is the fact that a person has a mental problem makes it hard for the Defense, Prosecution, Judge and Jury to determine whether the person that is being prosecuted is actually mentally ill. Tests have to be preformed and a ruling that the subject has a mental problem that disallows them the competency to understand their actions and comprehend the court case, before being allowed to enter the NGRI sentence. People that falsify the fact that they have mental problems and need help are actually few and far in-between even though the competence screening tests may produce false negatives: Heilbrun, Kirk / Fortune, William H. / Nietzel, Michael T. / (2010).
References
Bonnie, Richard J.; Poythress Norman G.; Hoge, Steven K.; Monahan, John; Eisenberg, Marlene Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Fall96, Vol. 87 Issue 1, p48, 15p, 4 Charts, Decision-Making in Criminal Defense: An Empirical Study of Insanity Pleas and the Impact of Doubted Client Competence.
Deseret News.com from source http://www.deseretnews.com/article/915172/Counter-bureaucratic-insanity.html
Heilbrun, Kirk / Fortune, William H. / Nietzel, Michael T. / (2010) © Cengage Learning, Wrightsman’s Psychology and the Legal System, 6e
LawJrank.org from source http://law.jrank.org/pages/7664/Insanity-Defense-History.html and http://law.jrank.org/pages/7666/Insanity-Defense-THERE-NEED-INSANITY-DEFENSE.html
LexisNexis.com from source https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=7+Am.+J.+L.+and+Med.+237&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=26cedffcc074e9510e6b6a011b4e8a15
Miller, Robert D.; Olin, Jonathan; Ball, Elissa M.; Bennett, Charles; Beven, Gary F.; Pitt, Steven E.. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, (Spring2006), Vol. 34 Issue 1, p37-49, 13p, The validity of Colorado not criminally responsible findings.
PBS .Org(2011) from Source http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/history.html and http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/faqs.html and http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/jailed/ and http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/faqs.html
Shralow, Donna R.. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Winter1983, Vol. 74 Issue 4, p1334-1352, 19p, FIFTH AMENDMENT--INDEFINITE COMMITMENT OF INSANITY ACQUITTEES AND DUE PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS.
Speakout.com from source http://www.speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1229b-1.html
No comments:
Post a Comment