Insanity Defense
One legal issue that sparks controversy is the insanity defense,
with insanity having a legal meaning
but no medical definition. The argument that a person accused of a crime is not
guilty because that person cannot con-trol his or her actions or cannot
understand the wrong-fulness of the act is known as the M’Naghten Rule. When
the person meets the criteria, he or she may be found guilty by reason of
insanity. The public perception of the insanity defense is that it is used in
33% to 45% of major criminal cases and that it is usually successful; that is,
the person accused of the crime “gets off” and is free imme-diately (Melton,
Petrila, Poythree, & Slobogin, 2007). In actuality, this defense is used in
only 0.9% (9 in 1,000) of all criminal cases and is successful in less than 20%
of those cases.
Four states—Idaho, Kansas, Montana, and Utah—have abolished the
insanity defense. Thirteen states, including Idaho, Kansas, Montana and Utah,
have a law allowing a verdict of guilty but insane. Ideally, this means that
the person is held responsible for the criminal behavior but can receive
treatment for mental illness. Critics of this ver-dict, including the APA,
argue that people do not always receive needed psychiatric treatment and that
this verdict absolves the legal system of its responsibility.
Related Topics
Privacy Policy, Terms and Conditions, DMCA Policy and Compliant
Copyright © 2018-2023 BrainKart.com; All Rights Reserved. Developed by Therithal info, Chennai.