There are multiple types of defense, justification and excuse are affirmative defenses. This is when it must be raised or asserted by the defendant independently of any claims made by the prosecutor.
The first case to be explained is about Andrea Yates, the type of defense she chooses was innocence by reason of insanity Andrea Yates Biography. She had cited postpartum psychosis. Yates was treated for postpartum depression and psychosis; they showed that the illness ran in her family. The birth of her fifth child and death of her father was shown as a reason she fell into a severe depression. She was accused of drowning all Supreme Court may help to answer the question after it hears Clark's challenge to Arizona's strippeddown insanity defense, which Clark says denied him a fair trial by not taking full account of his mental illness.
In a double-edged due process attack on Arizona's system, Clark wants the justices to relax restrictions the state places on the insanity defense, which accounts for mental illness with a "guilty except insane" verdict.
The callers complained of a Because of the actions of John Hinckley Congress enacted changes to the law that affected the way defense attorneys used the insanity defense in order to protect their clients in court due to concerns that some defendants had no metal disorders, and others were classified as having personality disorders. The notes Hinckley left for film star Jodie Foster showed how disturbed he was.
John Hinckley reportedly admitted that he was fantasizing about the life of a character in a famous movie. This article went on to explain that Hinckley suffered from other physical ailments that caused significant weight gain and also required prescriptions such as Valium, antidepressants, and antihistamines. He said that God told him to do it.
The doctors said that he suffered from a religious psychosis Rawlins. Some people seem to get away with these kinds of heinous crimes because of insanity and others, who really have mental problems, get locked away in prison and forgotten about. In other words, a person may live in a fantasy world and believe that things are going on around them that really are not.
Also, a person may not be able to control their urges. For instance, a person may get the urge to flip someone the middle finger that cuts them off in traffic. This would be an uncontrollable impulsive behavior. Many serial killers use this line of defense as a strategy to get put into a mental hospital rather than prison.
Mental hospitals give prisoners less rules and more freedoms than do Pierce 2 prisons. Some killers though, are truly insane. There is a fine line, as well as a good defense attorney, as to which side you fall on, sane or insane.
Jeffrey Dahmer committed at least seventeen murders and entered a not guilty by reason of insanity plea but was found guilty of fifteen murders and found to be sane. One might ask how Dahmer can be sane after butchering so many young men and even keeping parts of their bodies in Emily is a victim of circumstances such as the pressure from the town and the status she had that led her into committing murder.
I can relate to Emily in this case where you really love someone such that you contemplate about killing them or finding all possible means to keep them in your life. The future and its outcome at this moment she did not consider except fulfilling the desires of her heart and holding to the person her lover. Emily was insane. The insanity defense generally requires that, at the time of the offense, the defendant, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate that his actions were wrong.
Some classic example of mental illness are mental retardation or post-traumatic stress disorder, or even anti-social personality disorder. The defense requires a showing of severe mental disease or defect. This requirement prevents use of the insanity defense by those who have an immature personality or have displayed a pattern of anti-social behavior. The temporary insanity plea is associated with crimes of passion, but it still is used less than is commonly thought.
Throughout the story Emily struggles with the loss of her father. This behavior shows that she is in denial and she was Hint: What is the important second prong of the McNaughten rule? Why not? Guilty but insane Guilty but insane means that the person knew at the time that their actions were wrong but they had no control over their actions because of their mental disorder. Not guilty by reason of insanity Not guilty by reason of insanity means that the individual experienced a temporary moment of insanity that they could not control during which time they did something that they would not normally have done.
In some cases, the accused may be sentenced to a less severe sentence or punishment after being found on the wrong side of the law because of the mental impairment. Many nations allow the insanity defense in their legal systems.
However, the accused must prove to the court that they were not on their senses or acted upon uncontrolled impulse or some variety of these factors when doing the wrongful doings.
The general sense of insanity plea is to provide the alleged perpetrator of the criminal offense a fair trial. Where's the note? So much for the first prong of the nature and consequences, which is their burden of proof.
They don't make it. Do they make the second prong? They must prove to you that Ralph Tortorici [didn't know] his conduct was wrong.
And by wrong the law means, as you will hear, is that he can't know that it was either legally or morally wrong. If he does, he can't say he's not responsible. Ladies and gentlemen, as you will hear, when we talk about wrong and knowledge of wrongness, we're not talking about-- I was a little hesitant to give you this example because it's a little lacking in taste, but after what you heard in this trial it's really nothing. Do you remember that commercial? I think it was for some popular laxative, where they said "normal is normal for you.
The judge will tell you the defendant cannot escape criminal responsibility by imposing his own personal standard of rightness and wrongness. Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I think there's a lot of proof in this record to show that Ralph Tortorici himself knew that his act was wrong, even for him.
But they must show you, as I said, that he didn't know what others would think. Where's their proof? Where is there proof? Ladies and gentlemen, even though we don't have to prove to you that he did know under the second prong of the test-- which I like to call the wrong prong-- there's a lot of proof to show that Ralph Tortorici did know that others would perceive his act as legally or morally wrong.
Let's go through them. Number one, he hides the gun in his coat all the way-- and you heard Dackri Simpson tell you-- all the way from-- SUNY Albany is a big campus-- all the way from the Colonial Quad parking lot across the outside of the campus, onto the academic podium, as he told you, downstairs to the lecture center, all the while with the gun in his coat, hiding the gun, secreting the gun. Shows that he knows the conduct is wrong. He continues to secrete the gun as he walks into the lecture center.
Shows he knows that the conduct is wrong. Go ahead. Calls over Investigator Guiry in the emergency room and says, "You know, I didn't mean to shoot anybody. Emergency room records say he's sorry that anybody got hurt. And that's right after the time of the incident. Shows he knows that his act is legally or morally wrong. Ladies and gentlemen, the fact that he doesn't start talking about his motivation being getting the chip out of his brain or penis until after he's arrested shows, I would submit to you, that he knows he needs a sympathetic reason to explain his conduct and, therefore, shows that he knows his act was legally wrong.
Ladies and gentlemen, you heard some rather disturbing kind of graphic gross testimony from Investigator Guiry about how Ralph Tortorici had defecated in his pants after-- at the risk of sounding gross-- I would suggest to you, since there's no evidence that he had any ordinary problem with his bowels or whatever, I would suggest that he shows to you that he was scared.
And if he knew enough to be scared, it shows you that you knew his act was either legally or morally wrong. The note to the family. And, again, the fact that he mentions the experiment in the note, "Dear family, please understand my actions are necessary to try to stop this experimenting," shows again-- and you're talking about the mind here, admittedly a bit disturbed, but a very smart psychology major senior.
Think about what the target audience is for this note. It's his family. All right? And his family that he knows is already sympathetic to the idea of his mental illness. He knows that he needs to give them comfort, to give them peace, a sympathetic reason for his conduct, so they will sympathize and feel sorry for him. Because saying, "Dear family, I'm really mad at the University and my girlfriend and I'm going to go take hostages and kill people" isn't going to make it; it's not particularly sympathetic.
It shows that he knows that his conduct is morally wrong. He has to give an excuse. Why give an excuse, if you didn't know your act was wrong? Why offer apologies? Why offer up excuses?
Why offer up reasons, if you are convinced that you're so right? You don't need to offer up apologies for being right unless you perceive that other people would perceive what you did is wrong. Just the fact, I would submit to you, that he feels the need to apologize for and explain his conduct shows that he knows that his conduct is morally wrong. Finally, ladies and gentlemen, last and best-- and I have to tell you I like this one best because it comes from the guy who they paid thousands of dollars to meet their burden of proof of showing that the defendant is not responsible, and he ends up, I would submit to you, showing that he is-- and that's Dr.
There were two quotes that Ralph Tortorici said to Dr. And I would submit to you that either one shows that Ralph Tortorici knew that society, or others, would see his act as wrong.
The first quote was this: "Holding hostages is wrong, but when you're a freedom fighter, it's not necessarily wrong. It shows you that he knows the difference between what's wrong for him and what society would see as wrong, and that others would perceive it as wrong.
It's also important that he uses the phrase, I would submit to you, "not necessarily wrong. You know, not really wrong? Just kind of sort of wrong? It shows that he appreciates the wrongfulness of his conduct. Second quote: "It was wrong, but under the conditions justifiable, especially if the result would lead to a greater good. Shows that he knows his conduct is wrong.
Ladies and gentlemen, I know they don't like this, but it's true, it's true, it's true. It is an example, plain and simple, of a terrorist mentality: "the end justifies the means, you can't make a omelet without breaking eggs," and all those things. Ladies and gentlemen, plain and simple, terrorists-- no matter what their act is, and I don't have to bring up those examples-- terrorists are responsible for their actions.
Killing another person is the most serious crime in the US criminal justice … The two major standards used by states to guide insanity evaluations are the M'Naghten test and the ….
Back to Top Clark V. Arizona — Amicus Merits Docket number: No. Supreme Court Term … approach to mental illness is well within the broad leeway that the Constitution affords the States in ad ministering criminal justice.
FindLaw Find a Lawyer. Find … The Criminal Law glossary gives you access to definitions for the Criminal legal terminology commonly used in documents and trials. Tests — criminal Laws.
0コメント