The Insanity Plea
"The insanity defense traces its history to an 1843 assassination attempt on British Prime Minister Robert Peel." Now, about a third of the states allow a "guilty by reason of insanity" plea (Witkin, 7). Fortunately, on the contrary to popular belief, only one percent of felony cases led to a ruling of "not guilty by reason of insanity." When a killer is ruled "not guilty by reason of insanity," they are simply turned loose to reek havoc on society as a whole, while the victims' families must deal with the pain and suffering. I will therefore argue in favor of the proposition that the insanity defense be abolished. First, it is very hard to judge whether or not a subject is insane. In the case of Kevin E. Reichardt, a sophomore from the University of North Carolina, who was killed by Wendell Williamson, Williamson was found "not guilty by reason of insanity." Psychiatrists all agreed the fact that Williamson was indeed insane at the time of the murder. But one of the defense mental health experts testified on the stand that her decision was the best guess. Typically, experts will generally tell what state of mind they "feel" or "think" the defendant is in (Schlosser, 50). One cannot deem someone insane just by beliefs.
Also, using the insanity plea is just another way for a person to flee from their personal responsibilities. In many cases, a person charged for a violent act of indiscretion, has blamed their reason on various sources including, drugs, alcohol, and even junk food. One case applies to a criminal claiming "cultural psychosis" when she killed another girl over a coat. Her reason was for the inner-city trauma that affects many others (Brownfield, 10). This is a perfect example of how we are allowing society to just brush off their wrongful decisions by either blaming society or their past. For about one hundred years, our country has termed criminal insanity as whether or not the criminal knows what they are doing at the time of the incident nor do they know about the degree of the crime. But psychiatrists argue that the word "'know' omitted emotional and unconscious aspects of behavior, as set forth by Freud and others" (Brownfield, 10). But instead they now use the term "temporarily insane" to excuse criminals. Once again, people are finding ways excuse individuals from taking responsibility for their actions. Not only are the criminals responsible, but so are the psychiatrists who are giving more and more reasons for criminals to get away with their actions. Brownfield, Allan, C. (1994). Defense Attorneys Mad About Insanity Defense. Human Events, 50, 10. Another problem with the insanity plea is that the defendants may actually be at a disadvantage when they plea insane. In a mock trial, jurors were able to evaluate insanity plea. They were al
Some common words found in the essay are:
Freud Brownfield, Washington DC, Robert Peel, Williamson Williamson, insanity defense, , death penalty, guilty reason insanity, guilty reason, insanity plea, reason insanity, Mark Science, Human Events, World Report, USA Magazine, Behavior Personality, ruled guilty reason, mental institute, subject insane, schlosser 50, brownfield 10, actions insanity,
Approximate Word count = 1059
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)
|