Insanity Defense Insanity Defense Name Class Date Professor Insanity Defense When a person is arrested for a crime they have the right to put on a defense. The criminal defendant can claim the committed the crime in self defense or they could simply say they are innocent. Another type of defense is the insanity defense. In the insanity defense the criminal defendant claims they are not responsible for the crime due to their mental state. In order to be successful at pleading the insanity defense the defendant must prove they were not in their right mind at the time of the crime. If a defendant is found to be legally insane they will either be sent to a mental health facility or to prison where they will receive mental health treatment. There have been many famous cases where the criminal defendant claimed they were insane. John Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Reagan but despite the heinous crime he was found not guilty for reasons of insanity. This outraged the American public leading to all types of reforms to the insanity defense. The McNaughton Rule was the original test applied to measuring insanity (Collins, 2006). This test simply asks whether the defendant new the difference between right and wrong at the time of the crime. After Hinckley the McNaughton rule was discarded in many states and the burden of proof went from the prosecutor to the defendant. In some rare case a jury will find a person temporarily insane. In the Lorena Bobbitt case the defendant was found temporarily insane after she mutilated her husband’s genitalia. Lorena Bobbitt is infamous for cutting off her husband’s penis after he raped her. Bobbitt then discarded the penis but it was later retrieved by police. Lorena claimed she was under extreme stress at the time she got the knife and mutilated her sleeping husband. She claimed she did not understand what she was doing when she took a knife to her husband. The jury agreed with Lorena and found her not guilty by reason of insanity. Jonathon Schmitz was a criminal defendant who killed a gay man, Amedure, who had a crush on him. Schmitz was invited onto a talk show about same sex crushes but was angered when he was confronted by a male friend claiming to have a crush instead of an ex girlfriend or another female as Schmitz expected. Schmitz felt humiliated on national television when Amedure described sexual feelings he had for Schmitz. Later Amedure sent Schmitz a sexually explicit note causing him to grab a shotgun and shoot Amedure. Schmidt claimed insanity but was found guilty of second degree murder. Claiming insanity does not guarantee a criminal defendant will be found not guilty in current society but in many cases if a criminal defendant is found insane they are also found guilty. Citizens are fed up with criminals committing violent crimes and claiming insanity. The insanity defense is one of the hardest defenses to prove unless it i.

1. Insanity Defense
Insanity Defense
Name
Class
Date
Professor
Insanity Defense
When a person is arrested for a crime they have the right to
put on a defense. The criminal defendant can claim the
committed the crime in self defense or they could simply say
they are innocent. Another type of defense is the insanity
defense. In the insanity defense the criminal defendant claims
they are not responsible for the crime due to their mental state.

2. In order to be successful at pleading the insanity defense the
defendant must prove they were not in their right mind at the
time of the crime. If a defendant is found to be legally insane
they will either be sent to a mental health facility or to prison
where they will receive mental health treatment.
There have been many famous cases where the criminal
defendant claimed they were insane. John Hinckley attempted to
assassinate President Reagan but despite the heinous crime he
was found not guilty for reasons of insanity. This outraged the
American public leading to all types of reforms to the insanity
defense. The McNaughton Rule was the original test applied to
measuring insanity (Collins, 2006). This test simply asks
whether the defendant new the difference between right and
wrong at the time of the crime. After Hinckley the McNaughton
rule was discarded in many states and the burden of proof went
from the prosecutor to the defendant.
In some rare case a jury will find a person temporarily
insane. In the Lorena Bobbitt case the defendant was found
temporarily insane after she mutilated her husband’s genitalia.
Lorena Bobbitt is infamous for cutting off her husband’s penis
after he raped her. Bobbitt then discarded the penis but it was
later retrieved by police. Lorena claimed she was under extreme
stress at the time she got the knife and mutilated her sleeping
husband. She claimed she did not understand what she was
doing when she took a knife to her husband. The jury agreed
with Lorena and found her not guilty by reason of insanity.
Jonathon Schmitz was a criminal defendant who killed a gay
man, Amedure, who had a crush on him. Schmitz was invited
onto a talk show about same sex crushes but was angered when
he was confronted by a male friend claiming to have a crush
instead of an ex girlfriend or another female as Schmitz
expected. Schmitz felt humiliated on national television when
Amedure described sexual feelings he had for Schmitz. Later
Amedure sent Schmitz a sexually explicit note causing him to
grab a shotgun and shoot Amedure. Schmidt claimed insanity
but was found guilty of second degree murder.

3. Claiming insanity does not guarantee a criminal defendant
will be found not guilty in current society but in many cases if a
criminal defendant is found insane they are also found guilty.
Citizens are fed up with criminals committing violent crimes
and claiming insanity. The insanity defense is one of the hardest
defenses to prove unless it is paired with a clear history of
mental illness (Hoffman, 2006). In the case of Hinckley and
Bobbitt the circumstances clearly showed a potential for
insanity while in the Schmidt case the jury believed his actions
were criminal not due to temporary insanity.
References
Collins, K., Hinkebein, G. & Schorgl, S. (2006). The John
Hinckley trial & its effect on the
insanity defense. Retrieved January 30, 2014 from
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleyi
nsanity.htm
Hoffman, M. (2006). The Insanity Defense Goes Back on Trial.
Retrieved January 30, 2013
from
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/opinion/30hoffman.html?_r
=0
Kase, A. (2012). Gay Panic Defense in Philly Murder Trial?
Retrieved February 4, 2014 from
http://lawyers.com/2012/06/gay-panic-defense-in-philly-
murder-trial/
Psychological Trial

4. Psychological Trial Consultant
Name
Class
Date
Professor
Psychological Trial Consultant
Psychological trial consultants can play a valuable role in
the court system by providing key information on the defendant,
jurors, or witnesses. Through their knowledge of human
behavior and scientific assessment the psychologist will provide
the court with insight to assist in proving the guilt or innocence
of a criminal defendant. One of the most popular reasons a
psychologists is employed in the trial process is during jury
selection. Psychologists are hired to assess the potential juror in
order to identify any potential bias against the court or the
criminal defendant.

5. Selecting a jury is crucial to the outcome of a court case. If
the defense attorney or prosecutor selects the wrong jury the
result can be a bad outcome. The use of a psychologist to select
a jury is most often used in criminal cases were the defendant
can afford the services of a psychological trial consultant or the
state has one on their payroll. The consultant will observe
jurors as they are questioned by attorneys. This questioning is
known as voir dire or speaking the truth (Hutson, 2007). Jurors
can be dismissed for cause by either of the opposing attorney or
dismissed on a peremptory challenge. The psychologist’s assists
in determining which jurors should be dismissed.
When a psychological is used during jury selection they will
pick up on behavior, body language, and the reaction of the
potential juror to questions asked by the prosecutor or defense
attorneys. These reactions allow the attorney to make a decision
whether or not to dismiss the juror. Psychologists do provide a
worthwhile service especially when they assist in the
development of a fair and unbiased jury. When the jury is
unbiased the result of the trial will be fair for the criminal
defendant. Biased juries can result in a failure of justice. Guilty
offenders could go free if the jury is biased or the innocent
could be found guilty for a crime they did not commit.
Scientific jury selection should become more widespread as
long as it is available to all criminal defendants as well as the
state. Scientific jury selection is a valuable tool for screening
potential jurors and assessing them for potential biased against
the states position or against the criminal defendant. For
example the psychologist could identify a juror that is prejudice
against minorities when there is a minority criminal defendant
or identify a juror that is against the death penalty in a capital
case. If psychological evaluation during jury selection became
more widespread jurors used in court cases would be
scientifically selected.
While critics find jury selection is not a scientific process
the additional information gleaned from these professionals can
assist the attorney in persuading a jury to see their viewpoint.

6. To achieve these goals the attorney needs to understand the
jurors. This includes understanding - who they are, what
motivates them, and how they make decisions (Singer, 2008).
Without this information the opposing attorney may pick a jury
more likely to agree with their side of the argument.
Jury selection is a complicated process especially in high
powered cases, such as the Scott Peterson trial or the Kacee
Anthony trial. Trial consultants, in both cases, assisted the
prosecution and the defense in identifying jurors biased against
their side of the argument. In the Anthony case the jury selected
helped to free her while in the Peterson case the selected jury
helped to convict. Through the use of a psychologist the jury
selected provided an unbiased decision on guilty or not.
References
Hutson, M. (2007). Unnatural Selection. Retrieved October 10,
2013 from
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200703/unnatural-
selection
Singer , A. (2008). Using Psychology to Win in Court.
Retrieved December 10, 2013 from
http://www.trialconsultants.com/Library/UsingPsychologytoWin
.html