Should The Insanity Defense Be Abolished
What constitutes insanity? Currently, legal experts are pondering over this question. More specifically though, many are questioning the issue of the insanity defense, its credibility, and whether or not it should be abolished. When one speaks of the insanity defense, the M'Naughten rule comes to mind. The M'Naughten rule is a required test that a jury must find that the defendant did not know the nature of the act that he or she could not tell right from wrong (Katsh, 1998). Those who believe in the M'Naughten rule, such as Richard Bonnie, are in favor of the insanity defense. Contrary to the M'Naughten rule, some believe that there are individuals who can distinguish between good and evil but still cannot control their behavior. Bonnie believes that the abolition of the insanity defense is immoral and leaves no alternative for those who are unaware and responsible for their actions. On the other hand, Jonathan Rowe feels that the insanity defense should be abolished. Rowe believes that it is used by white middle- or upper class defendants and basically it leads to unfair results (Katsh, 1998). Tremendous amounts of controversy and criticism surround the issue of the insanity defense. Jonathan Rowe examines its credib
Rowe continues to provide an argument for why the insanity defense should be eliminated pointing towards the relationship shared between psychiatrists and defendants. "The biggest problem is that many psychiatrists cannot relate to poor people" (Katsh, 1998). Not only are psychiatrists unable to relate to poor people, but neither is the insanity defense. Rowe uses a good example to illustrate this point. He states that someone from a "nice" upper-class background who commits a horrible crime is thought to be crazy as compared to someone from a poor, lower class background (Katsh, 1998). To me, Rowe makes a lot of sense in this aspect. Most upper-class individuals, who are recognized in the community, that commit a crime are thought of as crazy or even having a bad day. This is not the case for, let's say, an individual from the projects of a community. ility and makes several valid points as to why the insanity defense should be abolished. First and foremost, Rowe believes that the only solution to questions surrounding the insanity defense is the complete abolition of its existence. Rowe first addresses the idea of so-called "forensic psychiatrists". These psychiatrists, according to Rowe, show up in trial and attempt to display their specialty skills in the mental health field (Katsh, 1998). In other words, Rowe does not believe in a psychiatrist's ability to assess an individual's state of mind at the time a crime was committed. This is the only portion of Rowe's argument that I do not agree with. Being a psychology major and hoping to enter the forensic field, I believe that a psychiatrist does have the ability to assess a criminal situation. The examination
Some common words found in the essay are:
Jonathan Rowe, Bonnie Bonnie, , Rowe Bonnie, insanity defense, Contrary M'Naughten, katsh 1998, m'naughten rule, Richard Bonnie, insanity defense abolished, rowe believes, defense abolished, bonnie believes, defense immoral, abolition insanity, believes abolition, issue insanity defense, defense immoral leaves, abolition insanity defense, immoral leaves alternative, immoral leaves,
Approximate Word count = 1139
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
