Insanity Defense

Insanity Defense Donita Estes, Patrick Fostso, Jennia McCray, Yasmine McGee, Inga Payne CJA/354 October 22, 2012 Samara Belgarde, J. D. Insanity Defense The criminal justice system in America is one of the fair systems in the world where anyone will be innocent until proven of guilt. The whole concept of the court system emphasizes how our laws work regardless where we come from and how we look like or healthy or not anyone is entitles of due process. The idea that our justice and court system are fair to anyone on trial due to an arrest by probable cause and sentencing by a verdict guilty and not guilty of the jury.In the case or State v. Stu Dents, where the defendant was accused of killing his former girlfriend. We are going to elaborate how the charge of insanity can be plead in the defense case and in the other hand give some understanding how this plead play a role in the defendant case during the trial and after the trial in some states and particular California. Does your tea m feel this defendant is competent to stand trial? Why or why not? We believe that the defendant may not be competent to stand trial, due to the fact that he had has emotionally and mental issues.The defendant has no knowledge of the crime or its consequences, if put on the stand he may revert back to that emotional state of mind and will not be able to give and accurate statement and will not be able to understand charges and sentencing. What is required in your state for an insanity defense? First of all, let’s understand the issue here, Mr. Dents was arrested of the killing his former girlfriend Uma Opee. Mr. Dents was charge by the state on theses: Homicide, Assault of a police, officer, Burglary and crimes related to drugs. After all these charges, the defendant pleads not guilty due to reason of insanity.In California, insanity can be called as an affirmative insanity: According to Schmalleger. F& Dolatowski, J (2010), an affirmative defense is a status that define some one who committed an unlawful act and requested an excuse for the behave due to the criminal conduct (Insanity). In California the defense need to show some aspect of legal defense such as: Defendant does not understand the nature of the act, Defendant does not know was wrong, Defendant does not have self-control, Defendant needs to show at the time he has a history of mental diseases against his ability to define between right and wrong.During sentencing of the insanity plea the jury can deliberate the sanity claim on many ways such as: -Hung jury will give the court of making determination if there is enough evidence to retry the defendant on sanity only. If the jury returns a unanimous of not guilty by reason of insanity the defendant will be committed at the state mental hospital. In the other hand in California, it will be difficult for the defense because the prosecutor will bring their own medical expert to show that the defendant has the ability to see between what’s right and wrong.What steps must be taken to prove insanity? Insanity defense is the defense which has a role of claiming that their client, the defendant was not in a state of understanding what he or she did due to mental disorder. This is to clarify that in this state the defendant does not bear any responsibility of the alleged actions. In this case insanity is a term used legally and not a medical one, so a court decides on whether to involve medical professionals or not. Definition of mental illness varies in a range of jurisdictions.The term insanity is under the guide line of the jurisdictions statutory and that cannot be defined by use of the medical definition (Fersch, 2005). As the defense team of in the case of State v. Stu Dents there should be the burden of proof. Our client, Stu Dents is charged of homicide, assault of police officer, kidnapping, burglary, and crimes related to drugs. Homicide is understood as killing of person due to omission or act of another. Kidnap ping is going against somebody’s will by taking him from one place to another without letting him or her exercise freedom.Burglary is considered as theft by entering into someone’s resident without permission. Homicidal offence, in side with drugs, is considered as a felony together with kidnapping and burglary. In their nature, they are considered as serious and punishable by death or long sentence (Cole, 2008). Considering the charges, there should be the burden of proof. It is clear that anybody accused before the court is innocent until he or she is proven guilty. The ultimate factor to consider in this case is the intent and mental element. It is clear that at the time when our client, Mr.Stu Dent was being arrested, he was not all well. He was irrational, agitated, and combative, and when officers tried to hand cuff him he was screaming and yelling, mentioning unrealistic phrases for instance he said he was God. The reality is our client was mentally instable. Fo r the offence of homicide it not clear that our client was the one who entered in Uma Opee resident, and it is not known if there were signs of using force and if he used a key to gain access to his girl friend’s residence. Finally, after the toxicology reports our client Mr.Stu Dents, was not under the influence of drugs. It is justified that Mr. Stu Dents is not mentally stable therefore, he do not deserve to go to prison rather to go for psychiatric care (Ciolino, 2000). Court issues members of the panel of judges that the accused do not account for the act due to the reason of mental illness. If the evidence presented is found to have doubts about his her sanity, then there is need to establish sanity of the one accused (Cole, 2008). Burden of proof-the accused bears the burden of proving to the defense by use of convincing and clear evidence.Defendant is required to show sufficient evidence, creating a reasonable doubt to justify sanity. This determined by the prosecutor after considering the evidence (Cole, 2008). If the accused is found to be insane there for he or she is not responsible of any criminal conduct due to his or her state of mental health (Cole, 2008). Conclusion Finally, you do not consider the opinions of the experts who testified of the matter but you must consider the defendants sanity when the criminal conduct happened, viewing the evidence presented lightly then concluding the truth of the matter.References Ciolino, P. J. , & Castle, G. E. (2000). Advanced forensic criminal defense investigations. Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges Pub. Co. Cole, G. F. , & Smith, C. E. (2008). Criminal justice in America. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Fersch, E. A. (2005). Thinking about the insanity defense: Answers to frequently asked questions With case examples. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse. Schmalleger, F. , Hall, D. E. , & Dolatowski, J. J. (2010). Criminal law today. (4th Ed. ) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. http://www. californiamentalhea lthlawyer. com http://www. shouselaw. com