Should 'Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity' be used as a defense within criminal trials?
Answers:
no but mental malformation is good i had a friend who's retarded nephew kill him and sat there surrounded by the yard holding him rocking back and forth contained by the front yard till a neighbor passed by and saw him
Only if the accused at the time of the offense be living in a secure mental condition institution or undertaking a course of intense treatment for serious mental health issue(s) such that s/he required and was unloading some sort of daily living assistance. Someone who is working, paying bills, seeing friends and undergoing regular psychiatric help should not qualify.
I also disagree strongly with the notion of hate crimes - unless women are included among the protected/targeted classes of those.
Yes, it should and can be used.
It does not fly very often as it is exceedingly hard to prove.
If it is accepted by the jury, the character can be freed as they have been found not guilty.
If it is deem necessary, the judge can decree the person to be held for a psych evaluation. That usually means that the entity can be held for up to 72 hours but, unless found as a danger to themselves or others, they will be set free.
Usually, the person have already been evaluated before the trial but can again be evaluated since being released or held for psych reasons. Source(s): MSW working near the mentally ill.
I will say yes, but, the use of such defense should include a life of institutionalization to protect us from someone, who, for anything reason, can't tell right from wrong.
Actually, most states use a term closer to 'not guilty by reason of mental illness/defect'. I would prefer 'guilty, but mentally ill'. That would allow a sentence of X years or until declared mentally sound, whichever is LONGER.
Related Questions: