Insanity defense Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Insanity abnegation - Term Paper Example249). This defense has posed an insoluble line of work to the lamentable justice system Contrary to the criminal law which seeks to punish the criminal the monomania defense seeks to excuse the criminal of responsibility (Fersch, 2005). Affirming the crucial importance of criminal intent in defining a criminal offence, this term paper contends that insanity defense is morally justified and necessary because without this justice whitethorn be unwittingly denied. Insanity Defenses The recognition and standard of insanity defense vary across states and have changed with the years From the MNaghten rule (1841) to the introduction of Diminished Responsibility (1866) and to the Insanity Defense Reform coif of 1984. (Reznek, 1997 Fersch, 2005) These changes did not abolish neither weaken the insanity defense, but instead further rationalized its justness as can be deduced from its five categories. First, the cognitive defense asserts that the wrongdoer is not guilty by contend of insanity (NGRI) because his psychogenic illness prevents him from knowing the wrongfulness of his act. This defense moldiness prove that at the epoch of the criminal act, the defendant must have been damaged by a mental illness to a point that the defendant did not know what he was doing and that what he was doing was wrong. Second, the volitional defense asserts that the offender is NGRI because his mental illness prevents him from controlling his impulses, causing him to act criminally. This defense though not widely accepted is utilize in crimes of passion. Third, the causal defense asserts that the offender is NGRI because his mental illness causes him does the criminal act unconsciously. This defense may apply in automatism cases where a person may have purposefully committed a crime in an unconscious state. For example, Simon Fraser in his sleep walking unknowingly battered his son to death composition dreaming that he was defendin g himself against a wild beast. Fourth, the character change defense asserts that the offender is NGRI because his mental illness changes his moral character causing his criminal act. Here, the defendants decent character must be proven, showing that his wrongful act is clearly out of his character. And fifth, the diminished capacity defense asserts that the offender is NGRI because his mental illness reduces his culpability for committing the crime. This defense may not necessarily exonerate the defendant from criminal liability but can reduce the quality of the crime and hence the sentence. (Reznek 1997) This defense, Williams (1983) clarifies, is judged based on the pietism of the case rather than psychiatric findings that its success relies more on getting the sympathy of jurors (as cited in Reznek, 1997, p. 278). These categories of insanity defense emphasize the incapacitating impact of mental illness on the moral judgment of the defendant causing his criminal act. Since crim inal responsibility requires moral culpability and since justice demands the punishment of evil ones, and so insanity defense is justified (Reznek, 1997). Therefore, insanity defense is not only an excuse to avoid punishment but is essential to ensure the integrity of the criminal law. To abolish insanity defense may compromise criminal justice. Temporary Insanity The temporary insanity defense is an excuse doctrine that concerns the blameworthiness of the actor. foreign conventional insanity