Due tonight at 7:00pm Question: With regard to the Insanity defense: Do you like
ID: 3493108 • Letter: D
Question
Due tonight at 7:00pmQuestion: With regard to the Insanity defense: Do you like New York's test? Do you think that the insanity defense should be allowed at all? Do you think that perhaps people who successfully raise the insanity defense should be committed to a mental hospital until they are deemed sane and then should serve out the remainder (if any) of a prison sentence? It also cuts both ways that sometimes people who successfully raise the insanity defense end up in a mental hospital for longer than what would've been their prison sentence. What other thoughts do you have on this very controversial issue?
Others answers:
answer 1: I do like New York's Insanity defense test. I feel that it is fair because people who do suffer with insanity have mental diseases and are not aware of the a crime they may have committed due to the fact that they don't know any better. It should be allowed because everyone is not perfect and most people do suffer with a mental disease that they did not ask for. This is not letting them "off the hook" but it brings questions to a judge mind to think whether or not an individual is responsible for their conduct at the time of a illegal action. According to FindLaw, "In states that allow the insanity defense, defendants must prove to the court that they did not understand what they were doing; failed to know right from wrong; acted on an uncontrollable impulse or some variety of these factors."(Reuters, 2017). This means that there are some states who don't allow this test but, there are states who do allow it and must show proof that they did not know exactly what they was doing at the time. If proven, then they would not be charged with that crime they committed but if not proven they they would have to face consequences if even they are mentally Ill. Yes and no, I do think people who successfully raise the insanity defense should be committed to a mental hospital to help them would on their behavior and teach them right and wrong but I don't agree that they should stay until they are deemed sane or serve out the remainder of a prison sentence because when someone is effective by a serious disease that affects their brain, nervous system they have to live with that for the rest of their life. For example, someone who has HIV can have treatment to help with the disease but it is not a fact that the HIV is going to definitely going to be gone. If someone does end up in a mental hospital for longer than what would've been their prison sentence maybe that individual really needed to be help mentally and physically.
In own words answer question, answer is an example! Due tonight at 7:00pm
Question: With regard to the Insanity defense: Do you like New York's test? Do you think that the insanity defense should be allowed at all? Do you think that perhaps people who successfully raise the insanity defense should be committed to a mental hospital until they are deemed sane and then should serve out the remainder (if any) of a prison sentence? It also cuts both ways that sometimes people who successfully raise the insanity defense end up in a mental hospital for longer than what would've been their prison sentence. What other thoughts do you have on this very controversial issue?
Others answers:
answer 1: I do like New York's Insanity defense test. I feel that it is fair because people who do suffer with insanity have mental diseases and are not aware of the a crime they may have committed due to the fact that they don't know any better. It should be allowed because everyone is not perfect and most people do suffer with a mental disease that they did not ask for. This is not letting them "off the hook" but it brings questions to a judge mind to think whether or not an individual is responsible for their conduct at the time of a illegal action. According to FindLaw, "In states that allow the insanity defense, defendants must prove to the court that they did not understand what they were doing; failed to know right from wrong; acted on an uncontrollable impulse or some variety of these factors."(Reuters, 2017). This means that there are some states who don't allow this test but, there are states who do allow it and must show proof that they did not know exactly what they was doing at the time. If proven, then they would not be charged with that crime they committed but if not proven they they would have to face consequences if even they are mentally Ill. Yes and no, I do think people who successfully raise the insanity defense should be committed to a mental hospital to help them would on their behavior and teach them right and wrong but I don't agree that they should stay until they are deemed sane or serve out the remainder of a prison sentence because when someone is effective by a serious disease that affects their brain, nervous system they have to live with that for the rest of their life. For example, someone who has HIV can have treatment to help with the disease but it is not a fact that the HIV is going to definitely going to be gone. If someone does end up in a mental hospital for longer than what would've been their prison sentence maybe that individual really needed to be help mentally and physically.
In own words answer question, answer is an example! Due tonight at 7:00pm
Others answers:
answer 1: I do like New York's Insanity defense test. I feel that it is fair because people who do suffer with insanity have mental diseases and are not aware of the a crime they may have committed due to the fact that they don't know any better. It should be allowed because everyone is not perfect and most people do suffer with a mental disease that they did not ask for. This is not letting them "off the hook" but it brings questions to a judge mind to think whether or not an individual is responsible for their conduct at the time of a illegal action. According to FindLaw, "In states that allow the insanity defense, defendants must prove to the court that they did not understand what they were doing; failed to know right from wrong; acted on an uncontrollable impulse or some variety of these factors."(Reuters, 2017). This means that there are some states who don't allow this test but, there are states who do allow it and must show proof that they did not know exactly what they was doing at the time. If proven, then they would not be charged with that crime they committed but if not proven they they would have to face consequences if even they are mentally Ill. Yes and no, I do think people who successfully raise the insanity defense should be committed to a mental hospital to help them would on their behavior and teach them right and wrong but I don't agree that they should stay until they are deemed sane or serve out the remainder of a prison sentence because when someone is effective by a serious disease that affects their brain, nervous system they have to live with that for the rest of their life. For example, someone who has HIV can have treatment to help with the disease but it is not a fact that the HIV is going to definitely going to be gone. If someone does end up in a mental hospital for longer than what would've been their prison sentence maybe that individual really needed to be help mentally and physically.
In own words answer question, answer is an example!
Explanation / Answer
According to dictionary, crime means offense or act which is not acceptable as right in the civil setting. Insanity is a mental illness where the individual may not be able to distinguish between right/acceptable and wrong/offense. Insanity defense is consideration for excuse if the person committed crime due to insanity. If the individual is not aware of what is right or wrong when crime is committed.
Insanity defense test is carried out to learn about the individual's mental status like decision making ability, emotional stability, presence of delusions, ability to comprehend sensory stimulus and reality, and ability to act in accordance to acceptance of law and society. New York defense test tends to analyze if the individual is not stable enough to perceive the real world and having delusions about the reality and if individual's ability to act appropriately at the time of offense hindered without knowledge of consequences. If the individual is unable to differentiate right and wrong and unable to analyze the consequences at the time of offense/crime, then individual could not be held responsible for the offense or crime. As individual who proves to be mentally ill or insane at the onset of offense or crime, could not be put in prison to serve the term after treatment in hospital, rather they should be provided place in psychiatric rehabilitation center until behavior observed satisfactory and enable the individual to be acceptable be part of society.
It is imperative to treat individuals with such mental illness if psychopathic behavior can be resolved and individual can become sane again. It depends on what type and degree of mental illness the individual suffers. If the minor personality disorders resulted in offensive behavior of the individual resulting in minor offenses and crime such as kleptomania resulting in minor thefts, then should be treated in hospital and make sure further events not happen with continued follow-ups and rehabilitation. If the offense consists of violence and due to insanity of an individual with severe mental illness, then it should be treated in hospital setting primarily and also put in rehabilitation until major behavioral changes noted. We can put individuals in rehabilitation centers after initial treatment of mental illness, observing severity of illness reduced in terms of impulsivity, emotional stability, maladaptive behavior. By putting these individuals in rehabilitation center will avoid further offense or crime as there will be strict supervision of behavioral changes.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.