Discuss your inference on whether insanity should ever be considered a court defense for criminals?
psychology opinion paper cross-examine...plz give me ur opinion on base on this question guys
Answers:
I believe wholeheartedly that anyone in a psychotic state during an attack, robbery, or murder should be considered mentally incompetent. I know this won't be very popular but what if it be you? Or someone in your family? At matching time I believe that until the mental hygiene law is changed from patients being competent to refuse medications that would lessen or completely curtail these hallucination, delusions or paranoia, to a law that states someone must become responsible for this being and make sure they take their medication for the benefit of society. If they are truly mentally in poor health they should be considered as such for a legal defense. If someone is 35 and has be schizophrenic since age 18-they are still 18 unless they have been medicated. Personally, I would want someone to hold care of me if I were this seriously in poor health, I don't want to live under a bridge! Source(s): psych
In my evaluation, the very second a defense attorney enters an insanity plea, his client should be right now sentenced to life in a mental institution, near no chance of ever being released. That would effectively stop this charm.
Insantiy is something that scares everybody. There are cases of insane crimanals that did not know right from wrong and their problems should be considered as a defense. But in attendance are other criminals who are insane but they are still able to plan , stalk, carry out their crimes and after avoid detection for weeks, months and sometimes even years. How can you really say they don't know right from wrong even if they do have a diagnosable mental disease but but they don't get punished as a person who committed one and the same crime without the diagnosis would. I personally don't ruminate that is right. That's my opinion for what it's worth.
if it is a previous problem but i don't really think that i saw my wife and i go temp insane thing is a good defense wither you are other insane and always have be otherwise its to hard to prove
Not guilty by reason of insanity should not be used impressively often because it technically really means "not guilty." Many years ago, ancestors who got NGRI pretty much stayed in a state hospital for most of their lives. Now that in that are advocates involved, people can achieve out once they are not "insane" which could be several doses of medication away. Plus, since they are "not guilty" they can collect social security benefits, etc. of people they kill.
Guilty but insane should be used for people who committed a crime while they were not surrounded by contact with reality. They entail treatment but once they get it and are stabilized, they need to budge to jail. I'm not saying they should shift forever but at least for some period of time. They still did doesn`t matter what the crime was and if they are still potentially dangerous - which they are because who is to vote that they'll continue treatment after they leave the hospital?
It's sort of resembling when someone is drunk. My mother was hit by a 16 yo drunk driver when I was 5 (this be 47 years ago) and nothing at all happen to him because "he was drunk so he didn't know what he was doing." Now, obviously, people know that there's nothing to prevent him from getting drunk again so he better be stopped. Source(s): Long time psych nurse - you wouldn't believe what some individuals have gotten away with!!
as expected it should
the law makes a distinction between whether the defendant can or can not distinguish between right and wrong
Related Questions:
Can I hold your guidance on the following criminal defense scenario?
History and legitimate defense to criminal act?
Is it criminal that Iowa contracts Elron (Israeli defense firm) to tally the votes?
Requirements for practicing tenet (criminal defense work)?
Why is voluntary intoxication usually not standard as a defense to criminal liability?
Answers:
I believe wholeheartedly that anyone in a psychotic state during an attack, robbery, or murder should be considered mentally incompetent. I know this won't be very popular but what if it be you? Or someone in your family? At matching time I believe that until the mental hygiene law is changed from patients being competent to refuse medications that would lessen or completely curtail these hallucination, delusions or paranoia, to a law that states someone must become responsible for this being and make sure they take their medication for the benefit of society. If they are truly mentally in poor health they should be considered as such for a legal defense. If someone is 35 and has be schizophrenic since age 18-they are still 18 unless they have been medicated. Personally, I would want someone to hold care of me if I were this seriously in poor health, I don't want to live under a bridge! Source(s): psych
In my evaluation, the very second a defense attorney enters an insanity plea, his client should be right now sentenced to life in a mental institution, near no chance of ever being released. That would effectively stop this charm.
Insantiy is something that scares everybody. There are cases of insane crimanals that did not know right from wrong and their problems should be considered as a defense. But in attendance are other criminals who are insane but they are still able to plan , stalk, carry out their crimes and after avoid detection for weeks, months and sometimes even years. How can you really say they don't know right from wrong even if they do have a diagnosable mental disease but but they don't get punished as a person who committed one and the same crime without the diagnosis would. I personally don't ruminate that is right. That's my opinion for what it's worth.
if it is a previous problem but i don't really think that i saw my wife and i go temp insane thing is a good defense wither you are other insane and always have be otherwise its to hard to prove
Not guilty by reason of insanity should not be used impressively often because it technically really means "not guilty." Many years ago, ancestors who got NGRI pretty much stayed in a state hospital for most of their lives. Now that in that are advocates involved, people can achieve out once they are not "insane" which could be several doses of medication away. Plus, since they are "not guilty" they can collect social security benefits, etc. of people they kill.
Guilty but insane should be used for people who committed a crime while they were not surrounded by contact with reality. They entail treatment but once they get it and are stabilized, they need to budge to jail. I'm not saying they should shift forever but at least for some period of time. They still did doesn`t matter what the crime was and if they are still potentially dangerous - which they are because who is to vote that they'll continue treatment after they leave the hospital?
It's sort of resembling when someone is drunk. My mother was hit by a 16 yo drunk driver when I was 5 (this be 47 years ago) and nothing at all happen to him because "he was drunk so he didn't know what he was doing." Now, obviously, people know that there's nothing to prevent him from getting drunk again so he better be stopped. Source(s): Long time psych nurse - you wouldn't believe what some individuals have gotten away with!!
as expected it should
the law makes a distinction between whether the defendant can or can not distinguish between right and wrong
Related Questions: