Scribd
Upload
28 views2 pages

Matter of Mind

The document discusses a case where a young man shoots and kills a police officer. It presents the arguments around the defendant's constitutional right to use the insanity defense and the leeway given to prosecutors. It then discusses the differences between mental illness and insanity, and outlines the McNaughten rule for determining insanity as a defense. Finally, it identifies different potential verdicts and explains how the author would rule in this case based on evidence of planning presented.

Uploaded by

drcalypsojellyfinger
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
28 views2 pages

Matter of Mind

The document discusses a case where a young man shoots and kills a police officer. It presents the arguments around the defendant's constitutional right to use the insanity defense and the leeway given to prosecutors. It then discusses the differences between mental illness and insanity, and outlines the McNaughten rule for determining insanity as a defense. Finally, it identifies different potential verdicts and explains how the author would rule in this case based on evidence of planning presented.

Uploaded by

drcalypsojellyfinger
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

A Matter over Mind

Review the Electronic Reserve Readings for Week Five, located on the student website. In your reading,
A Matter over Mind, the author presents the case of a young man who shoots and kills a police officer.
The case argues a defendants constitutional right to use the insanity defense and the amount of leeway
provided to prosecutors.

What is the difference between mental illness and insanity?

When symptoms cause distress beyond the scope of the problems mental illness comes with, it can
be considered insanity. When a person can no longer be seen as responsible for his or her actions;
this condition can be viewed as insanity. Hallucinations and delusions frequently appear in what is
considered insanity. Insanity is no longer a diagnosis but is relevant in the legal system when
determining whether or not someone is accountable for his/her actions in a committed crime.
Serious mental illness can be considered insanity and might require permanent hospitalization and
rigorous treatment. Not all mental illness is considered insanity but insanity is never seen without mental
illness.


The McNaughten rule cannot be used to defend the actions of a person who drinks alcohol
and then murders someone. Why not?


The McNaughten rule relates to the ability of not knowing the difference between right from wrong.
This rule presumes that the person was sane at the time of committing the crime, unless the accused
can prove that "at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of
reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if
he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing wrong." The McNaughten rule can't be used
when the defendant had been drinking alcohol because by being intoxicated they are considered
impaired and not suffering from a disease of the mind.


Identify each of the following:

o Rational and guilty

A defendant who is Rational and Guilty had the mental capacity to understand that what he was doing
was wrong and was convicted of his crime.

o Guilty but insane

A verdict of Guilty but Insane would find mentally ill defendants criminally liable. They would get
psychiatric treatment while incarcerated or placed in a mental hospital. If/when they get well they
are then moved to a prison to serve their sentences.


o Not guilty by reason of insanity

A verdict of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity allows a defendant to avoid prison altogether. The state
will mandate psychiatric treatment. Basically, the defendant would not be responsible, for a crime
because it would be established that at the time of the crime, the accused was unable to differentiate
between right and wrong because of his mental illness or mental defect.



A Matter over Mind

If you were deciding this case, how would you rule? Briefly explain your decision.

I would have ruled the same way as the judge did because of the witness statements that Clark
planned the whole to kill a police officer by causing a disturbance. That alone tells me he had
presence of mind and also premeditated the crime which is 1
st
degree murder. If there was a
failure here it was by the medical establishment which failed to keep Clark hospitalized.

You might also like