In order for an insanity defense to stand, the defense must prove that at the time of the acts, the person did not "know" right from "wrong," or that they were not aware of what they were doing at the time. These terms are not concrete and unlike other states, Texas does not inform the jury of the proper definitions of the terms involved in the case (Dix, 2005)
Andrea Yates (Kennedy) launched successful career as a registered nurse at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center from 1986 until 1994 (Montaldo, 2007)
Another famous case which hinged upon the definition of insanity was that of John Hinkley, the would-be assassin of President Ronald Reagan. "The prosecution contended that Hinckley suffered only from 'personality disorders' of the type affecting five to ten percent of the population, whereas the defense saw the same evidence as demonstrating Hinckley's serious mental illness" (Linder 2008)
Mental health has progressed and so should the legal communities' method of recognizing its affects and results. Defendants who are truly mentally ill should not be subject to the same set of sanctions that a mentally competent person faces (Bard, 2005)
Despite significant advances in the area of psychiatry and psychology, the legal system in Texas has changed its laws relative to the insanity very little over the years and, as a result, the defense has become virtually useless as a viable defense even for those who are severely psychotic. The Texas insanity defense is a slight variation on the old M'Naghten test which was first applied in England in 1843 (Clark v. Arizona, 2006)
The Texas Mental Health Association and the American Bar Association both have encouraged that the Texas legislature amend the law regarding not instructing juries regarding the consequences of not guilty by reason of insanity finding but, to date, the Texas legislature has not followed either organization's recommendations. The law in Texas regarding the use of the insanity defense is archaic and reflective of a much earlier time (Dix, 2005)
There are many alternatives available and with the improvements in psychiatric diagnosis it is time that Texas begins incorporating these new diagnostic techniques and procedures into its insanity defense determinations. The most obvious change in the insanity standard in Texas is the adding of some form of volitional prong to the present limited M'Naghten test (English, 1988)
Criminal Insane Defense The insanity defense has been a topic of much controversy because of its perceived means of excusing someone from a crime that has been committed. Although much is perceived of the insanity defense as a way to avoid accountability, it is actually the least used defense strategy because of its extreme difficulty is proving it (Knoll & Resnick, 2008)
In order for an offender to get away with the insanity defense, they would have to have been unstable at the time of the actual crime, which in itself brings much controversy. One of the major criticisms of the insanity defense is that it is used as a way to not find a person accountable for the crimes that they have committed (Mackay et al
Being incarcerated entails so many other factors, that getting treatment actually becomes second to about every other necessity. The offenders are less likely to ever get well because it is hard to implement any sort of regulation behind bars (Bartol & Bartol 2011)
If a person is successful in raising an insanity defense in Florida, he or she would be among only a few who have done so. In April of 1990, an 18-year-old woman who drowned her newborn son in the toilet in her college dormitory successfully used the defense (Brennan, 2011)
Pleading insanity is relatively uncommon in every state, because it can be so difficult for the defense to convince a judge and jury that his or her client honestly did not know what he or she was doing, or that the actions he or she took were wrong. Only around 1% of people who are convicted of serious crimes try to use an insanity defense (Burns, 2011)
If the person is not competent to stand trial and is actually deemed criminally insane, he or she may not even have any kind of trial regardless of the nature of the crime. Instead, the person may be placed into a mental facility and he or she can remain there indefinitely (Ellis, 1986)
For the severely criminally insane, though, this is not generally the case. Instead, they are often locked away in a mental health facility for the rest of their lives, or they are medicated and then tried for their crimes, after which they are incarcerated in prison for the length of their sentence - sometimes the rest of their lives (Gostin, 1982)
Before that time, there was no difference in the eyes of the court between criminal behavior and mental illness, so people who were mentally ill did not get any special treatment and did not have the option to avoid punishment (including execution) just because they were mentally defective or damaged in some way. In 1986, the Supreme Court upheld the idea that it was not legal to execute a person who was insane (Schmalleger, 2001)
This is usually done through medication, because proper medication for a previously unmedicated mental illness can make a lot of difference in how sane and rational a person is. If a person can be medicated and made competent to stand trial, some prosecutors will still try the person (Walker, 1968)
This is usually done through medication, because proper medication for a previously unmedicated mental illness can make a lot of difference in how sane and rational a person is. If a person can be medicated and made competent to stand trial, some prosecutors will still try the person (Walker, 1968)
What should be avoided per the author of this treatise is listening too much to the "whims of what may be called 'public opinion'." Indeed, this article that references the New York test case directly references the actions of M'Naughten and potential Reagan assassin Hinckley when making the case that the insanity defense and its definition is entirely misunderstood and misapplied in a lot of cases (Blau, McGinley & Pasewark, 1993)
Such has been and continues to be the case in areas like Australia. When it comes to forensic mental health orders, whether it is related to a trial where an insanity defense is at issue or something else, there are pertinent question about freedom of patient movement, the patient's rights as they are tried and/or sentenced and so forth (Carroll et al
As a result, Daniel M'Naughten was sentenced to a mental institution for the rest of his life because he was declared mentally ill at the time he committed the crime (Legal Information Institute, 2010; (Cornell, 2010). Some people use "temporary" insanity or "heat of the moment" defenses to justify why the crime occurred but, at the same time, the person who commited the offense should not go to jail (Covey, 2011)