The Insanity Defense: Exploring Legal and Ethical Dimensions Introduction The insanity defense is a controversial legal strategy that allows individuals accused of committing a crime to claim that they were not mentally capable of understanding the nature of their actions or distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the offense. This defense is predicated on the belief that individuals suffering from severe mental illness or disorder should not be held criminally

Ethical Issues With the Insanity Defense Ethical Issues w / Insanity Defense The insanity defense may seem to have a distinct and real place in the legal world. However, defining who is insane, who is not insane, what the definition of insanity is, whether insanity is temporary or permanent, who should be liable and when and so forth are all burning questions that are extremely hard to answer in a scientific, dispassionate

Insanity' Defense The John Hinckley Trial and the Impact on the Insanity Defense Purpose of Insanity Defense The theory that suffices the insanity defense involves the norm that most individuals can choose to follow the law. However, mental instability deprives individuals the ability to make rationale choices thereby they cannot be held accountable for their actions. Such groups of persons require special treatment as opposed to detention in prisons. The use of

When does insanity excuse criminal liability? A defendant has an excuse for liability, says Paul Robinson, in his book Criminal Law Defenses, when he or she is acting involuntarily and their own disability causes him or her to mistakenly or unknowingly violate a criminal prohibition. This person does not know whether his or her behavior is wrong or criminal (Robinson 222). This is in contrast to what is called a character-based

However, this Court also recognizes that mental illness oftentimes differs from other immutable characteristics, such as mental retardation and age, in that a defendant oftentimes has the ability to control mental illness through medical interventions. While there is tremendous evidence of Panetti's deteriorated mental state, there is very little evidence to support Panetti's assertions that he was insane at the time of the murders. Though there are serious questions regarding

Pre-Sentence Investigation Defense Attorney Jim Aiken Narcotics Detective Homicide Detective Miranda The Miranda rights were formulated in 1966 by the U.S. Supreme court after a case between Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda rights relate to the frights of an individual when that person is being taken into custody by the police and before that individual is being questioned. The individual should be read out and told about his rights according to the Fifth Amendment so that