The document discusses the insanity defense, including its definition, use, and criticisms. It notes that the insanity defense is rarely used, with only about 1% of cases employing it, and only one-quarter of those being successful. It is difficult to prove due to differences between medical and legal definitions of insanity. While those found not guilty by reason of insanity are civilly committed for an average of three years rather than released, there are criticisms that the mentally ill are improperly treated within the criminal justice system and that it relies too heavily on expert opinion over scientific fact. The document concludes that public perceptions of the insanity defense are inaccurate and that better treatment of mentally ill offenders is needed.
This article co-written by Dr. Robert J. Winn which aims to quantify the number of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Philadelphia who report to be victims of domestic violence.
Juror Perception of Intimate Partner Violence Cases Involving Victims with Di...Amanda Langley
My research lab and I conducted an experimental study looking at the perceptions that mock/potential jurors have of IPV, particularly when the victim has a disability.
Blume 2010 AAIDD Atkins MR/ID Death Penalty Symposium presentationKevin McGrew
This is John H. Blume's presentation made as part of an Atkins MR/ID Death Penalty Symposium at the 2010 AAIDD conference in Providence RI. A brief summary can be found at the following link.
http://tinyurl.com/2ehygh3
Week 6 Discussion 1The Courts and Legal Professionals Pleas.docxcockekeshia
Week 6 Discussion 1
"The Courts and Legal Professionals" Please respond to the following:
· Examine at least two (2) ethical concerns surrounding supranational courts that may have an influence on the United States’ reluctance to ratify the Rome Statute. Express the extent to which you agree these ethical concerns are valid. Provide support for your response.
· According to the textbook, judicial independence is a driving principle in the court system. Determine at least two (2) factors that can impede this principle and debate the extent to which the court system can overcome each factor.
Please also reply to the student
Stephanie Little
RE: Week 6 Discussion 1
Supranational courts are judicial mechanisms that direct judge’s decisions across international borders and supposedly have a higher legal standing than decisions of courts in individual countries and they are part of a larger trend to promote global human rights and global justice. Supranational courts serve to help provide individual citizens who have exhausted all their legal means of redress but feel they have been wronged by the justice system in a particular country and they hold those responsible for international law violations to a higher standard than are present in domestic courts. The Rome Statue is an international treaty binding only on those states that formally express their consent to be bound by its provisions. Clinton administration signed the treaty in late 2000, but the Bush administration immediately “unsigned” it in 2001. After they “unsigned” the treaty U.S. congress passed American Service Members Protection Act, which prohibits American Cooperation with the ICC. This authorizes the president to use military force against the court if it attempts to prosecute an American Citizen. One of the main concerns against the ICC is the fear that the U.S., being as powerful as it is, and with military present throughout the world would be vulnerable to prosecutions. Obama took a different route with this treaty stating they will work with the ICC on prosecution on certain matters. The ICC also prosecutes against a panel of judges that could be walking a fine line of violating the 6th amendment. This is not exactly giving the rights to an accused person in a criminal case, if a panel of judges within that country are reviewing your case. When in the U.S. they have the right to a jury trial. I do believe these concerns are valid, especially with the military. The U.S. military is everywhere, like previously stated, if they could be prosecuted in another country they would become more of a target then they already are.
One huge factor that will/can impede this principle is the media. The media will take one small statement they heard and run with it. Then it turns into something else and so on. During larger trials the jury is sometimes not allowed to review the news or any forms of media, due to possible swaying of the case. This keeps the case to only what is h.
Surname 4
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject: Disclosure of Past Misconduct by Officers
One of the dilemmas that face the courts today is what a prosecutor should do if he or she is aware of the past misconduct of a police officer involved in the case. In other words, is the prosecutor obliged to disclose such past misconducts or dishonesty by the officer who is involved in a pending case to the defendant? However, the answer to the question is that it is not an obligation and the prosecution may sometimes disclose such issues (Welty, 1). More importantly, the dishonesty or misconduct of the officer serves as a tool for impeachment in the ongoing case. The cases of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and the United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976) are used here to analyze the subject.
Noteworthy, a number of factors determine whether the misconduct or dishonesty by an officer is important in the pending case. First, the case must take into consideration how long ago the dishonesty or misconduct took place. For that matter, the more recent the misconduct the higher the chances that it will be considered valuable to the pending case. Furthermore, the case considers how serious the misconduct by the officer was. Therefore, more serious acts will obviously be considered material to the case. In addition, consideration must be given to how conclusively the case of the misconduct was established. The information will thus be material only if it is more likely that the officer engaged in the misconduct. In certain situations, the dishonesty may have resulted in a fact pattern similar to the current case. For instance, an officer may falsify a search warrant in both former case and current case and as such, the information is considered material.
More importantly, it must be considered whether the role of the officer in question is key to the current case or just peripheral. In addition, the case must determine whether the defendant in the case is planning to present his/her case based on the dishonesty or misconduct of the officer. If an officer plays a key role in the case, the information concerning misconduct will be vital. Similarly, if the defendant plans to use the dishonesty or misconduct information by the officer to present the case, the information is regarded as important. Finally, the judges consider whether the misconduct evidence is found in personnel records or in some less private sources. Information from personnel records is more reliable as they are subject to privacy.
In the Brady v. Maryland case, the Supreme Court ruled that for the defendant to have a fair trial, his/her attorney must be allowed access to exculpatory meant to demonstrate innocence. John Brady and Charles Boblit were accused of robbing and killing (Bass, 121). They were tried separately upon arrest and convicted for murder. However, Brady wanted to avoid death penalty and hence he admitted to have particip.
Research on the reasons behind wrongful convictions in the United States as well as recommendations for decreasing the number of wrongful convictions that occur annually
This article co-written by Dr. Robert J. Winn which aims to quantify the number of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Philadelphia who report to be victims of domestic violence.
Juror Perception of Intimate Partner Violence Cases Involving Victims with Di...Amanda Langley
My research lab and I conducted an experimental study looking at the perceptions that mock/potential jurors have of IPV, particularly when the victim has a disability.
Blume 2010 AAIDD Atkins MR/ID Death Penalty Symposium presentationKevin McGrew
This is John H. Blume's presentation made as part of an Atkins MR/ID Death Penalty Symposium at the 2010 AAIDD conference in Providence RI. A brief summary can be found at the following link.
http://tinyurl.com/2ehygh3
Week 6 Discussion 1The Courts and Legal Professionals Pleas.docxcockekeshia
Week 6 Discussion 1
"The Courts and Legal Professionals" Please respond to the following:
· Examine at least two (2) ethical concerns surrounding supranational courts that may have an influence on the United States’ reluctance to ratify the Rome Statute. Express the extent to which you agree these ethical concerns are valid. Provide support for your response.
· According to the textbook, judicial independence is a driving principle in the court system. Determine at least two (2) factors that can impede this principle and debate the extent to which the court system can overcome each factor.
Please also reply to the student
Stephanie Little
RE: Week 6 Discussion 1
Supranational courts are judicial mechanisms that direct judge’s decisions across international borders and supposedly have a higher legal standing than decisions of courts in individual countries and they are part of a larger trend to promote global human rights and global justice. Supranational courts serve to help provide individual citizens who have exhausted all their legal means of redress but feel they have been wronged by the justice system in a particular country and they hold those responsible for international law violations to a higher standard than are present in domestic courts. The Rome Statue is an international treaty binding only on those states that formally express their consent to be bound by its provisions. Clinton administration signed the treaty in late 2000, but the Bush administration immediately “unsigned” it in 2001. After they “unsigned” the treaty U.S. congress passed American Service Members Protection Act, which prohibits American Cooperation with the ICC. This authorizes the president to use military force against the court if it attempts to prosecute an American Citizen. One of the main concerns against the ICC is the fear that the U.S., being as powerful as it is, and with military present throughout the world would be vulnerable to prosecutions. Obama took a different route with this treaty stating they will work with the ICC on prosecution on certain matters. The ICC also prosecutes against a panel of judges that could be walking a fine line of violating the 6th amendment. This is not exactly giving the rights to an accused person in a criminal case, if a panel of judges within that country are reviewing your case. When in the U.S. they have the right to a jury trial. I do believe these concerns are valid, especially with the military. The U.S. military is everywhere, like previously stated, if they could be prosecuted in another country they would become more of a target then they already are.
One huge factor that will/can impede this principle is the media. The media will take one small statement they heard and run with it. Then it turns into something else and so on. During larger trials the jury is sometimes not allowed to review the news or any forms of media, due to possible swaying of the case. This keeps the case to only what is h.
Surname 4
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject: Disclosure of Past Misconduct by Officers
One of the dilemmas that face the courts today is what a prosecutor should do if he or she is aware of the past misconduct of a police officer involved in the case. In other words, is the prosecutor obliged to disclose such past misconducts or dishonesty by the officer who is involved in a pending case to the defendant? However, the answer to the question is that it is not an obligation and the prosecution may sometimes disclose such issues (Welty, 1). More importantly, the dishonesty or misconduct of the officer serves as a tool for impeachment in the ongoing case. The cases of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and the United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976) are used here to analyze the subject.
Noteworthy, a number of factors determine whether the misconduct or dishonesty by an officer is important in the pending case. First, the case must take into consideration how long ago the dishonesty or misconduct took place. For that matter, the more recent the misconduct the higher the chances that it will be considered valuable to the pending case. Furthermore, the case considers how serious the misconduct by the officer was. Therefore, more serious acts will obviously be considered material to the case. In addition, consideration must be given to how conclusively the case of the misconduct was established. The information will thus be material only if it is more likely that the officer engaged in the misconduct. In certain situations, the dishonesty may have resulted in a fact pattern similar to the current case. For instance, an officer may falsify a search warrant in both former case and current case and as such, the information is considered material.
More importantly, it must be considered whether the role of the officer in question is key to the current case or just peripheral. In addition, the case must determine whether the defendant in the case is planning to present his/her case based on the dishonesty or misconduct of the officer. If an officer plays a key role in the case, the information concerning misconduct will be vital. Similarly, if the defendant plans to use the dishonesty or misconduct information by the officer to present the case, the information is regarded as important. Finally, the judges consider whether the misconduct evidence is found in personnel records or in some less private sources. Information from personnel records is more reliable as they are subject to privacy.
In the Brady v. Maryland case, the Supreme Court ruled that for the defendant to have a fair trial, his/her attorney must be allowed access to exculpatory meant to demonstrate innocence. John Brady and Charles Boblit were accused of robbing and killing (Bass, 121). They were tried separately upon arrest and convicted for murder. However, Brady wanted to avoid death penalty and hence he admitted to have particip.
Research on the reasons behind wrongful convictions in the United States as well as recommendations for decreasing the number of wrongful convictions that occur annually
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.
Overlapping Universe Understanding Legal Insanity and Psychosis.docxalfred4lewis58146
Overlapping Universe: Understanding Legal Insanity and Psychosis
Zachary D. Torry • Stephen B. Billick
Published online: 6 April 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract The Insanity Defense of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity is the defense used by some mentally disordered defendants who do not have the capacity for understanding right and wrong at the time of their criminal act. This defense has perplexed legal and mental health professionals for centuries. Though it has been a part of the legal system since the early Greeks, it has been and continues to be amended, modified, and in some jurisdictions, abolished. Moreover, despite its infrequent use, many in our society hold onto the belief that defendants can evade criminal responsibility by means of this defense. Furthermore, insanity is often equated with psychosis; however, the two are not the same and have different connotations. It is essential for any clinical psychiatrist to understand the concept of the insanity defense and how it differs from psychosis. This paper will clarify the meaning and purpose of the insanity defense and will differentiate insanity and psychosis.
Keywords Insanity defense NGRI Criminal action Mens rea
Introduction
The insanity defense has been a controversial and elusive component of the legal and psychiatric professions for centuries. It has long tantalized defendants and mystified jurors. Furthermore, the concept that certain people may not be held responsible for their actions by reason of their mental state generates feelings of anger and disparity among some individuals. The insanity defense is viewed by some as a ‘‘loophole’’ for defendants and a
Z. D. Torry Saint Vincent’s Hospital, Manhattan, NY 10024, USA
Z. D. Torry (&) 140 West 79th Street, #4B, New York, NY 10024, USA e-mail: [email protected]
S. B. Billick New York Medical College, New York, NY, USA
123
Psychiatr Q (2010) 81:253–262 DOI 10.1007/s11126-010-9134-2
scheme that clever attorneys and mental health professionals exploit to acquit their criminal clients and permit dangerous people to roam freely in society. Therefore, at times this defense directs accusatory attention to the field of clinical and forensic psychiatry. The psychiatrist might be viewed as creating excuses for the defendants’ otherwise criminal behavior. Finally, it has been sometimes argued that the insanity defense is inconsistent with the deterrent and punishment purposes of criminal law. The reality is that the insanity defense is used in only 1% of criminal cases, and it is used successfully in only 10–25% of those [1]. Moreover, defendants who are found insane generally spend as much or more time in state custody than their criminally convicted counterparts [2]. Forensic psychiatrists are not the only psychiatrists who need to understand the insanity defense. Patients seen in ongoing clinical psychiatric treatment may commit crimes, and the psychiatrist should have some appreciation for understanding .
Hall del elizabeth del proyecto de la unidad 9 que determina la traducción es...Elizabeth Hall
Word Processor Spanish Translation- of Paper originally written in Englsih
Traducción española del procesador de textos del papel del wri originalmente
Unit 7 project elizabeth hall civil committment and insanity defense
1. Running Header: Mental Illness, The Insanity Plea, and Civil Commitment<br />Mental Illness, The Insanity Plea, and Civil Commitment Essay Questions<br />Elizabeth Hall<br />Kaplan University<br />Mental Illness, The Insanity Plea, and Civil Commitment Essay Questions<br />Introduction<br />In the American Justice System during the arraignment process, one of the things asked of the offenders is, “How do you plea?” Guilty, not guilty, nolo contendere (no contest), and not guilty by reason of insanity are the choices acceptable to answer the question according to Roberson, C., Wallace, H., & Stuckey, G.B. (2007). In this writing, we will explore the fourth choice, not guilty by reason of insanity, better known as the insanity defense. We will look at how frequently offenders attempt to use this defense, why it is difficult to use, and the major criticisms of the use of Insanity as a defense in a court of law.<br />The Insanity Defense<br />The legal definition of insanity as understood by Greene, Heibrun, Fortune, and Nietzel (2006), is the legal terminology referring to mental disease or brain defects that are shown to exist in the offender during the commission of the offense, if considered with other factors such as inabilities to either conform to legal behavior or understand why behavior is illegal. The major rulings that deal with this issue are the Brawner Rule, noting that an offender cannot be responsible for their act if they do not have the mental capacity to understand why the act is criminal or to change their behavior to conform to the rule of law. The other ruling is called the M’Naghten Rule, which states that an offender may be deemed not guilty by reason of insanity if they do not know what they did was wrong, or if they just did not know what they were doing at all. Both of these rulings require that the conditions must be the result of mental defect of some sort. (Greene et al, 2006)<br />Contrary to popular belief, the Insanity Defense is not used very often, because it is difficult to prove. The legal definition of insanity deals only with whether or not the perpetrator understood the act was wrong, and if they have the mental capacity to recognize right from wrong. Therefore a defendant such as a compulsive rapist or murderer that tortures their victims because the dog told them to do it, or some other sort of compulsion, that understands that the crime they committed was against the law, and why can be medically insane without qualifying to be legally insane. It is all in whether they have the mental capacity to distinguish right from wrong in the eyes of the legal system and laws of our country.<br /> Problems with this defense also arise because of the frequency that the legal definition of insanity differs by state, and changes are made often by the justice system as well. Another issue is that there is minimal accurate testing equipment and procedures to test for insanity especially when it concerns someone supposedly insane at the time of the crime, but otherwise sane. There are however, a few under-tested screening tools such as the Mental Status Examination at the Time of the Offense screening, and the Rogers Criminal Responsibility Scales test. (Greene et al, 2006)<br />Criticisms of Insanity Defense<br />There are many criticisms of the insanity defense, and the American people have conveyed their displeasure at this type of defense. The four main complaints are that the public believes that many offenders attempt to use this plea, and that susceptible juries are acquitting these defendants often. The other two complaints are that the offenders are just released back into society way to soon, and that all insane people are excessively dangerous. The reality of the situation is far different from what public opinion warrants. (Greene et al, 2006)<br />Insanity is only actually attempted in approximately 1 out of every 200 cases according to Greene et al, (2006). Only one-fourth of those are successful in producing a verdict of insanity. Contrary to public opinion, when an offender is found not guilty by reason of insanity, they are not set free, but remanded to a controlled facility for mental health patients for an average of three years. The last complaint about the insanity defense deals with the psychological aspect of the plea. Critics complain that should not be a legal defense, and base their arguments on the fact that there is little proven research on testing for insanity. This means that the case relies heavily on the opinions of expert witnesses instead of hard data scientific methods. (Greene et al, 2006)<br />Difficulty in Treating Mentally Ill Offenders<br />As noted by Bartollas (2002), one of the most crucial issues in dealing with the confinement of inmates is mental health placements for those needing psychological treatment. At one time in our country’s history, the mentally ill population was confined to mental institutions and hospitals instead of correctional facilities. These days the mentally ill are usually shuffling between homelessness and life on the street, local mental health clinics, and mostly correctional facilities. Because of decreasing budgets, and increasing crime, overcrowding can pose a serious block to accessibility of the facility’s limited psychological department for those inmates deemed mentally ill. (Bartollas, 2002)<br />One problem with this system of jailing the mentally ill is that correctional officers do not have the proper training to deal with the requirements of mentally ill offenders. They also lack the knowledge of when intervention on their parts is necessary. Another problem is that a mentally ill offender does not react well to the confines of correctional rules, or environments, and may just sit slumped and staring making them easy victims of other inmates. They also have more tendencies to commit suicide in this environment. (Bartollas, 2002)<br />Conclusion<br />In looking at how frequently offenders attempt to use the insanity defense, why it is difficult to use, and the major criticisms of the use of insanity as a defense in a court of law, we have discovered that public perception of this issue is not based on facts, but rather on feelings. The insanity defense is attempted far less than one would think. This is in part because the medical and legal definitions of insanity differ, and because the definition varies from location to location. The other part is that this defense relies heavily on opinion of psychological experts, instead of scientific measurable fact. As a nation, we need to reevaluate the treatment of mentally ill offenders because locking them down with violent criminal offenders only makes the illness worse as the inmate reacts negatively to their environment. (Greene et al, 2006)<br />References:<br />Bartollas, C. (2002). Invitation to Corrections. Boston. Allyn and Bacon<br />Greene, E., Heibrun, K., Fortune, W.H., Nietzel, M.T. (2006). Psychology and the Legal System (6th Ed.). Florence, Kentucky. Cengage Learning<br />Roberson, C., Wallace, H., & Stuckey, G.B. (2007).Procedures in the Justice System. Eighth ed.Pearson Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River. NJ.<br />