Insanity plea in California and Columbia
The capability to be perched for trial in the court of law relies on the accused topical mental state and at a time when a crime happens. An accused person needs to understand the charges against him and be able to help his lawyer in his defense. The main objective of insanity plea logic is to assist in solving cases where the defendant has shown signs of abnormality. The insanity plea is a situation in which the accused maintains the stand of innocence because of mental clumsiness and incompetence at the time the crime took place. The insanity plea procedure applies to the United Nation’s court of law over the years. However, the Supreme Court in the United States has granted permission to other courts to eliminate or modify the rule of the insanity plea. Some states like Idaho, Utah, and Kansas abolished the practice of insanity plea in their courts. Consequently, the rationale for insanity plea states that defendants who prove to be insane during the time of the crime, are entitled to insanity plea of not guilty because of being abnormal; District of Columbia and Californian states have been applying the rule of insanity plea for cases of mental defaults in their courts.
The rationale of the insanity plea has served in the American courts for several years and has acted as a defense mechanism for an accused person who is believed not to be capable of understanding what he or she is doing due to cases of insanity. The rule was applied when the American court of law implies that by the time an individual commits a crime, they should be aware or have knowledge of the criminal act (Moriarty 149). Initially, it was the duty of the prosecutor to prove to the court that the defendant was insane when the crime happened. However, after 1982 after the case of John Hickley, most states in the United States decided to change their insanity laws and made it the duty of the defense artery to justify that the defendant is insane. Presently, states depend on four types of tests to prove that a person is absurd that includes; M’Naghten rule, which states that the defendant must not be able to understand how they committed a crime and be unable to distinguish wrong or bad. There is also Durham rule that states that if a person’s mental abnormality is the reason they committed the crime, then they are not guilty. Another is Irresistible Impulse that determines whether the accused was unable to control their impulses and reactions, making them commit the criminal act. The last test is the Model Panel Code that implies that because of diagnosed mental disorder, the accuser was not able to control themselves from committing the criminal act.
California State uses the insanity rule to determine if the accused is legally insane by testing if he or she understands the difference between good and evil. Insanity rule was adopted in California in 1982 after voters passed the Victim’s Bill of Rights. According to California law courts, a person who cannot understand the nature of her crime and cannot distinguish between right and wrong is legally insane and cannot prove guilty for the crime they committed (LawGroup Par.5). In California, the M’Naghten test determines whether the person is mad, and if the results show that they are crazy. It does not matter their insanity is temporal or permanent, and the person is considered legally insane. In California courts, it is the burden of the accused to prove to the court if they were mad at the time that they committed the crime. And their magistrates are not allowed in any way to show their sanity on their behalf. When the jury concludes that the defendant was insane at the time of the crime, they will be found not guilty because of insanity. The sanity plea hearing always takes place before a jury but can be taken over by a judge when the accuser fails to provide sufficient evidence that they were insane when the crime occurred. In California, if you are found not guilty because of insanity, you do not face a jail term. Still, instead, you will be registered in a mental hospital to rehabilitate and treat your condition until the doctors confirm that you have regained from the insanity. California courts have modified their version of sanity plea; it helps in accuracy and satisfaction in confirmation of evidence that the accused was indeed insane at the time of the crime. It also ensures that there is justice for the mentally challenged individual. Such that, instead of receiving charges, are directed to mental hospitals for treatments of their conditions.
District of Columbia also uses the rule of insanity plea in its courts through the application of the Model Panel Code. The model is one of the most significant changes in the system of American Law and Legislation in 1972. The Model Panel Code states that an accused is not responsible for misconducts that are as a result of mental defaults since they did not have the knowledge to control his actions according to the requirements of the law. In Columbia courts, accused are not accountable for the alleged offenses if, because of mental illness and insanities, they cannot recognize what the law requires of them at the time of the crime. However, the defendant has the responsibility to prove to the court of law that they were insane when they committed the crime failure to which they end up guilty and face charges. Consequently, if they manage to prove to the court that they were indeed sane and were not aware of the requirements of the law against the crime committed, they will be pronounced not guilty with a reason of insanity. They will then register in mental hospitals for proper treatments until when they will be fit to go back home after their recovery. However, the District of Columbia abolished the rule of insanity at some point in history. They later experienced challenges that were emerging from families that their mentally challenged family members were discriminated against in 1985. During that period, the District recorded a rise in failed cases of defendants who were incompetent to stand charges walked freely without facing charges. After the incident, the District of Columbia decided to reinitiate the use of the insanity plea.
Morse’s argument will be in support of the jurisdiction in part one because, according to him, the influence of extreme craziness in criminal offense exists and can never cease to exist. He calls judging insane illegal as an unjust course since they do not have the ability and capacity to choose or question their behavior (Mores 524). Society should, therefore, apply the rule of sanity plea to avoid discrimination of the mentally challenged. Accused individuals who are mentally ill should instead have no option but to register into mental hospitals for proper treatment.
Morris’s argument will slightly support the jurisdiction in part one and still will want another adjustment on the same. Morris argues that courts have made an effective measure in recognizing that mentally challenged people are out of control of their actions and so should not be charged guilty. On the other hand, he states that the court should also recognize that other cases of physical disabilities such as blindness, dumbness, and even drunkenness should be treated as exceptional cases just like mental disabilities (Morris 519). He raises the question of fairness and only actions in the courts for proactive measures that will serve all limitations equally without discrimination.
In conclusion, it can be observed that the rule of sanity has been used in various states in the United States to solve cases that involve mental health disorders. Insanity plea implies that defendants who prove to be mentally ill during the time of the crime are not to be held responsible for their actions; instead, they register in mental hospitals for proper treatments. The rationale of the insanity plea has been used in various states in the United States, such as California and the District of Columbia. From the discussion, it is essential to note that the insanity plea has served as a tool for justice in courts for the mentally challenged individuals. It is vital to identify that an accused person is mentally unwell because their mental state can make them take actions that they never intended to do, or they might not be aware of what they did. Hence they should be handled with a lot of caution.
Work cited
LawGruop. “California’s Insanity Defense The Mcnaghten Rule”. Shouse Law Group A,P,C, 2020. Accessed 14 Apr 2020.
Moriarty, Jane. The Defense: The American Developments: The Role Of Mental Illness In Criminal Trials. Pb. Routledge, 2014, 2014, pp. 149-162.
Morris, Norval. “Abolition Of Insanity Defense”. 2012, Accessed 14 Apr 2020.
Morse, Stephen J. “Execusing The Crazy: The Insanity Defense Reconsidered”. 2009, Accessed 14 Apr 2020.