Did she know what she was doing was illegal? And then ignorance of the law is no excuse either. Ignorance of facts pertaining to whether a law was violated have rightly been held as valid defenses. This is sometimes called "ignorance of non-governing law". One woman used the defense successfully to defeat a bigamy charge. Due to problems with paperwork she had still been married even though she didn't know it.
Insanity defenses should be allowed within this other defense and that's it. The person should have to have made an error in perceiving reality that if correct would've justified their act. So for example if she hallucinated that his penis was an alien taking over her husband's body then she should get the insanity defense because if her hallucination had been true she should've been acting in self-defense.
However, from the looks of this her motivation was that he cheated on her and she got angry and she claims she "took it that far" because of the influences of her traumatic childhood in Vietnam. Not an excuse. The law should not care how a person feels. She was aware that she was cutting off her husband's penis and was not aware truly or falsely of any contingencies that if true would've been a valid defense. She knew what the consequences would be whether she bothered to stop and think about them or not and should be held accountable.
The fact is, that some of these people with serious mental issues that go out and murder hand - fulls of people, are not going to learn. They don't know what they are doing. Why should we be paying for them to live in a psychiatric hospital escaping the death penalty. They're not living in those places.
The insanity defense, a claim that the person being charged with criminal action is not responsible for the acts they have committed due to their unhealthy mental state, is often too lenient. If the criminal themself is trying to convince the court or psychiatrist that he or she is clinically insane, or have a disease such as schizophrenia or Munchausen by Proxy, then they obviously don’t have mental issues. People who have mental things going on inside their brains don’t know that they are having issues, which is often a large part of why they are classified in the category of people who need mental help. The insanity plea has been used often as a “cop-out” so that the criminal in question will get some sympathy votes from the jury, can spend shorter amounts of time in jail, or spend time in a psychiatric hospital instead of prison. The insanity plea should only be allowed if a professional declares it without pressure or anyone suggesting it. Often times, the insanity defense will be allowed in cases where most people disagree with the jurisdiction, or where the criminal knows they have messed up and wants to get out of being reprimanded for their action(s). For these reasons, I think the insanity defense is too lenient, and there needs to be stricter guidelines for who is declared sane and who is not.
If i was drunk or i was depressed dosent get you out of punishment, neither should i was crazy. I beileve that if u know how to use the gun, in this example, and you knew what you were doing, than you should be held responsible for your actions. The insanity plea should be abolished because it is putting dangerous people back out into socity.
Anyone who goes out and kills a bunch of people, people minding their own business, would have to be insane. Therefore, it would be easy to go out, murder a room full of children, then go before a judge and say, "I was insane. I didn't know what I was doing." The judge sentences you to a psychiatric hospital until you are deemed competent to stand trial. THAT is crazy.
Yes, I think that far too many criminals are using the insanity defense as a way to commit violent crimes and then avoid jail time and even the death penalty. I think that the media is trying to exaggerate their crimes of insanity, and that the insanity defense should be used less and less.
It is extremely difficult for the insanity plea to work. This is because it has to be proven that it actually was the case. This is why many attorneys do not see this as a good option to go and 3 states do not even have this option. There are usually expert witnesses and many judges and jurors are very skeptical of this and think that people should be held accountable for what they did (as do I). But the fact that it is only raised in 1% of cases shows that it is not just done whenever the attorneys damn well please.
Insanity defense standards are not too lenient. For a normal individual if you hear about someone who went on a killing rage it is often hard to comprehend how or why they did. In a sense it is insanity to that normal person. I think more criminals are more insane then we give them credit for.
It is extremely difficult for the insanity plea to work. This is because it has to be proves that it actually was the case. This is why many attorneys do not see this as a good option to go and 3 states do not even have this option. There are usually expert witnesses and many judges and jurors are very skeptical of this and think that people should be held accountable for what they did (as do I). But the fact that it is only raised in 1% of cases shows that it is not just done whenever the attorneys damn well please.