User:Butleramani

The insanity defense plea is a plea in which the defendant claims innocence due to mental ineffectiveness at the time. Insanity a mental disorder of such severity as to render its victim incapable of managing his affairs or of conforming to social standards. Today, the term insanity is used chiefly in criminal law, to denote mental aberrations or defects that may relieve a person from the legal consequences of his or her acts. The case of Daniel McNaughtan, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity after. A defense asserted by an accused in a criminal prosecution to avoid liability for the costs of a crime because, at the time of the crime, the person did not appreciate the nature or quality or wrongfulness of the acts that he or she has committed. The insanity defense is used by criminal defendants. The most common variation is cognitive insanity. Under the test for cognitive insanity, a defendant must have been so impaired by a mental disease or defect at the time of the act that he or she did not know the nature or quality of the act, or, if the defendant did know the nature or quality of the act, he or she did not know that the act was wrong. The infinite majority of states allow criminal defendants to appeal to the cognitive insanity defense.

Definition
The insanity defense found in a court of law is a plea in which the defendant claims innocence due to mental ineffectiveness at the time of their crime. Insanity is defined as a "mental disorder of such severity as to render its victim incapable of managing his affairs or of conforming to social standards.". Today, the term insanity is used chiefly in criminal law, to denote mental aberrations or defects that may relieve a person from the legal consequences of his or her acts. The case of Daniel McNaughtan, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity after. A defense asserted by an accused in a criminal prosecution to avoid liability for the costs of a crime because, at the time of the crime, the person did not appreciate the nature or quality or wrongfulness of the acts that he or she has committed. The insanity defense is used by criminal defendants. The most common variation is cognitive insanity. Under the test for cognitive insanity, a defendant must have been so impaired by a mental disease or defect at the time of the act that he or she did not know the nature or quality of the act, or, if the defendant did know the nature or quality of the act, he or she did not know that the act was wrong. The infinite majority of states allow criminal defendants to appeal to the cognitive insanity defense.Today, the term insanity is used chiefly in criminal law, to denote mental aberrations or defects that may relieve a person from the legal consequences of his or her acts.

Insanity-the condition of being insane; a derangement of the mind. such unsoundness of mind as affects legal responsibility or capacity Guilty- having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, esp. against moral or penal law; justly subject to a certain accusation or penalty Plea-an allegation made by, or on behalf of, a party to a legal suit, in support of his or her claim or defense.An appeal or entreaty something that is alleged, urged, or pleaded in defense or justification Law- the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision Defendant- a person, company, etc., against whom a claim or charge is brought in a court Crime-an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.

History
The proposition that some criminal defendants should not be held responsible for their actions by reason of their mental state has been well established in [Anglo-American]] law for centuries. As early as 1581, a legal treatise distinguished between those who understood the difference between good and evil and those who did not: If a madman or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy do [kill a man], this is no felonious act for they cannot be said to have any understanding will.By the 18th century, the British courts had elaborated on this distinction and developed what became known as the "wild beast" test: If a defendant was so bereft of sanity that he understood the ramifications of his behavior "no more than in an infant, a brute, or a wild beast," he would not be held responsible for his crimes.The guidelines for evaluating the criminal responsibility for defendants claiming to be insane were codified in the British courts in the case of Daniel M'Naughten in 1843. M'Naughten was a Scottish woodcutter who murdered the secretary to the prime minister, Sir Robert Peel, in a botched attempt to assassinate the prime minister himself. M'Naughten apparently believed that the prime minister was the architect of the myriad of personal and financial misfortunes that had befallen him. During his trial, nine witnesses testified to the fact that he was insane, and the jury acquitted him, finding him "not guilty by reason of insanity." Queen Victoria was not at all pleased with this outcome, and requested that the House of Lords review the verdict with a panel of judges. The judges reversed the jury verdict, and the formulation that emerged from their review -- that a defendant should not be held responsible for his actions if he could not tell that his actions were wrong at the time he committed them -- became the basis of the law governing legal responsibility in cases of insanity in England. The M'Naughten rule was embraced with almost no modification by American courts and legislatures for more than 100 years, until the mid-20th century. In 1998, 25 states plus the District of Columbia still used versions of the M'Naughten rule to test for legal insanity.

Debate over the Insanity Defense Plea
The insanity plea is an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense means that the defendant acknowledges the crime happened, but does not believe he or she should be held fully responsible for one reason or other. As anyone could probably guess, a person who pleads insanity is arguing that he or she should not be held responsible because he or she is legally insane, or was at the time that the crime was committed.This plea has sparked much controversy over the centuries. Some people are appalled by the idea that a murderer or other dangerous criminal could be "let off the hook" by claiming mental illness. Other people are equally repelled by the idea of punishing a person who is not capable of fully understanding or controlling his or her actions. At the center of all this debate has been the attempt to settle on a legal definition of insanity. Many different standards have been proposed and used in different courts all over the world. Within the US, the legal understanding of mental illness has evolved into several different forms over time. In chronological order, these are the rules of thumb that have been used to settle insanity pleas in the US.The earliest attempt to legally define insanity originated in England in 1843. It became known as the M'Naghten rule, after a paranoid schizophrenic who was found not guilty after shooting and killing a politician. This rule stated that a person could not be held legally responsible for criminal actions committed while suffering a mental disorder that either prevents them from understanding what he or she was doing,or either prevents them from knowing his or her behavior wrong.Some people in both the US and England felt this law was too lenient, and that a person should not be excused of crimes as long as he or she is capable of controlling his or her behavior. In 1887 the Alabama Supreme Court devised the "irresistible impulse test." Under this law, people who wanted to plead insanity had to demonstrate that they were incapable of controlling their behavior when their crimes were committed. Several states adopted this law, which was criticized both for being too strict and too lenient by various parties.

=Sanity = considered as a legal term denotes that an individual is of sound mind and therefore can bear legal responsibility for his or her actions. It is generally defined in terms of the absence of insanity. It is not a medical term, although the opinions of medical experts are often important in making a legal decision as to whether someone is sane or insane. It is also not the same concept as mental illness. One can be acting under profound mental illness and yet be sane, and one can also be ruled insane without an underlying mental illness. Sanity outside of legal definitions has been little explored by science and medicine, as the concentration has been on illness. Dr. P.S. Graven suggested the term "un-sane" to describe a condition that is not exactly insane, but not quite sane either.

Theory of sanity
was proposed by Alfred Korzybski in his general semantics. He believed that sanity was tied to the structural fit or lack of it between our reactions to the world and what is actually going on in the world. He expressed this notion in a map-territory analogy. "A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness." Given that science continually seeks to adjust its theories structurally to fit the facts, adjusts its maps to fit the territory, and thus advances more rapidly than any other field, he believed that the key to understanding sanity would be found in the study of the methods of science (and the study of structure as revealed by science). The adoption of a scientific outlook and attitude of continual adjustment by the individual toward his or her assumptions was the way, so he claimed. In other words, there were "factors of sanity to be found in the physico-mathematical methods of science."

English law
Under English law, there is an additional peremptory plea, that of special liability to repair a road or bridge. Under English law, local government authorities have the legal obligation to repair roads or bridges; but, in certain circumstances, the responsibility lies with a landowner instead. The local government authority, charged with a failure to repair a road or bridge, can allege that the responsibility lies with a landowner; at which point, the proceedings against them will be suspended, and proceedings commenced against the landowner they allege to have the responsibility; but if the landowner is found not to be responsible, then the matter may be recommenced against the local government authority. (see R. v. Sutton, Court of King's Bench, 1833)

= References =


 * , pp15–16.
 * at p.30
 * [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/history.html Frontline
 * [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/history.html Frontline