Insanity defense deals with a division of the assumption of insanity which describes the degree at which people accused of committing a crime might be excused of the responsibility of the crime because of their mental illness. The conditions of this kind of defense are based on the instructions which are presented to the jury by the trial judge at the closing of the case. The instruction on mental conditions can be based on any of the many rules which are used to determine mental illness. The last decision on mental illness depends fully on the jury which uses the information given from the testimony of a professional’ witness, normally expert in the psychology filed (Williams, 2006). The final result of such decision puts the person where he should be accordingly, can be in the mental institution, in jail, or direct release. Owing to these above mentioned aspects there are various problems which have been raised by the presence of insanity defense. In general I believe that people suffering from Schizophrenics should not be allowed to plead innocent on the basis of their condition, owing to the above factors and other which I am going to outline in details
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Analyzing insanity
3. The M’Naghten Rule
4. Schizophrenic and criminal acts
5. What must be done to attest a relationship involving Schizophrenia and criminology?
6. The myth of schizophrenia illness
7. Effectiveness of insanity defense
8. Conclusion
Objectives & Core Themes
The primary objective of this paper is to critically evaluate the validity of the insanity defense in the legal system, specifically concerning individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia, and to argue against its applicability in criminal proceedings based on the ambiguity of psychiatric and legal definitions.
- Legal definition of insanity versus medical psychiatric illness
- Critique of the M’Naghten Rule and assessment methods
- Lack of causal association between schizophrenia and criminal behavior
- Theoretical perspectives viewing mental illness as a social construct or myth
Excerpt from the Book
The M’Naghten Rule
This rule is as well termed as the right-wrong test; it came into being in 1843, when Daniel M’Naghten was on trial. During this trial M’Naghten made an argument that he was not responsible criminally for this acts (Guy, Mohan & Taylor, 2003, p, 167). Since, he was suffering from mental delusions at that moment of the killing. Accordingly this rule states that, a defendant might be excused and not held responsible for the criminal act supposing at the moment of the criminal act the person accused of the crime was in a state of defect of reasoning, was suffering from a mental disease, or was not able to comprehend the nature and weight of his actions, or if he knew it, he was not aware that he was doing something wrong. Consequently, in accordance to this rule, an individual is fundamentally insane if he/she is not able to discriminate between what is right and what is wrong, due to some mental illness like schizophrenic.
However, both the legal as well as medical experts have criticized this M’Naghten Rule. Many experts from the two fields point out the assessment is not sound on its viewpoint of human psychology. According to psychiatry, human personality is an integrated body, and cannot be subdivided into individual parts of emotion, reason and volition (Hodgins, 1992 p, 432). In addition this assessment method is criticized in the way it defines responsibility purely on the basis of cognition. Whereas cognitive signs may disclose disorder, using cognitive signs only can not provide enough evidence of the mental disorder or even verify responsibility. At the same time Guy, Mohan & Taylor, 2003, p, 168) sates that, it has been proved that people who have been declared insane by psychologists have had the capacity to differentiate between what is right and what is wrong. Accordingly it is believed that the biggest flaw of this assessment method lies in the reality that courts are not able to clearly distinguish between phrases like, mental disease, know, nature and other terminologies used in defining the rule.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the core problem of applying the insanity defense, highlighting the tension between legal and medical definitions of mental illness.
2. Analyzing insanity: Explores the concept of mens rea as the fundamental legal requirement for criminal responsibility and the challenges in assessing it.
3. The M’Naghten Rule: Examines the historical right-wrong test and explains why legal and medical experts criticize its reliance on cognitive capacity.
4. Schizophrenic and criminal acts: Argues that there is no proven causal relationship between the behavioral categories of schizophrenia and criminality.
5. What must be done to attest a relationship involving Schizophrenia and criminology?: Investigates the biological psychiatric perspective and the difficulty of mapping brain malfunctions to specific criminal outcomes.
6. The myth of schizophrenia illness: Discusses the theoretical view that mental illness is a social label rather than an objective medical reality.
7. Effectiveness of insanity defense: Reviews the preceding arguments to conclude that the current system is ineffective and unreliable.
8. Conclusion: Summarizes the final stance that the insanity defense should not be available to those with schizophrenia due to assessment limitations.
Keywords
Insanity defense, Schizophrenia, Mens rea, Actus reus, M’Naghten Rule, Criminology, Legal responsibility, Mental illness, Psychiatric assessment, Biological psychiatry, Criminal law, Cognitive impairment, Social labeling, Judicial system, Behavioral categories.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the appropriateness of allowing individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia to use the insanity defense in criminal court cases.
What are the primary themes discussed in this work?
The main themes include the legal concept of mens rea, the historical M’Naghten Rule, the debate between scientific and legal criminology, and the skepticism regarding the medical definition of mental illness.
What is the author's central research stance?
The author argues that the insanity defense should not be applicable to individuals with schizophrenia because the legal and medical systems fail to establish a clear, causal link between the condition and criminal behavior.
Which scientific methodology is addressed?
The paper references biological psychiatry and psychological assessments, while critiquing their application in legal contexts, specifically focusing on the M’Naghten Rule (the right-wrong test).
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body covers the definition of insanity in legal terms, the history and flaws of cognitive-based legal tests, the lack of causal association between schizophrenia and crime, and the critical view of mental illness as a myth.
Which keywords summarize this study?
Key terms include Insanity defense, Schizophrenia, Mens rea, Criminology, M’Naghten Rule, and Legal responsibility.
Why is the M’Naghten Rule specifically criticized in the text?
It is criticized because it relies too heavily on cognitive understanding, ignoring the integrated nature of human personality and failing to distinguish clearly between legal and medical terminology.
What does the text suggest regarding the "myth" of schizophrenia?
The text references scholars like Thomas Szasz to suggest that mental illness can be interpreted as a social label used for political and ethical control rather than a verifiable medical disease.
- Quote paper
- Ellen Garcia (Author), 2011, Should Schizophrenics be allowed to plead insanity to crimes?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/271687
