Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Such addition would represent a modernization in attitude and would allow the law in Texas to comport more closely with the prevailing societal views on mental health. Those with severe mental health issues deserve the opportunity of having their conditions treated. Lacking the capacity to make reasoned and rational decisions should not subject one to criminal sanctions.
In conclusion, convincing a historically conservative Texas legislature to enact significant changes in the insanity defense laws will be an uphill battle. Attempts have been made from time to do so and all such attempts have met with failure. The political climate in Texas is presently not conducive to radical or even moderate change on this issue. Law and order platforms are the popular choice in Texas and there is little room in such platforms for changes regarding the mentally ill. So, regardless of the moral rightness of advocating for such changes, there is little support either in the Texas legislature or the general public for making these changes. For the present, Texas law will continue to ignore the information that modern science...
(2005). Re-arranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic: Why the Incarceration of Individuals with Serious Illness Violates Public Health, Ethical, and Constitutional Principles and Therefore Cannot be made right by Piecemeal Changes to the Insanity Defense. Houston Journal Health Law & Policy .
Clark v. Arizona, 126 S. Ct. 2709 (U.S. Supreme Court 2006).
Dix, G.E. (2005, December 4). Texas Must Refine Insanity Standard. San Antonio Express-News, p. 5H.
English, J. (1988). Light between Twilight and Dusk: Federal Criminal Law and the Volitiional Insanity Defense. Hasting Law Journal, 1-52.
Kari & Associates. (1994). Mental Illness and Criminal Insanity. Retrieved June 19, 2011, from http://karisable.com/crmh.htm
State Bar Committee. (2010). Texas Criminal Pattern Jury Charges-Defenses. Austin: Texas Bar Books.
Texas Insanity defense
References
Bard, J.S. (2005). Re-arranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic: Why the Incarceration of Individuals with Serious Illness Violates Public Health, Ethical, and Constitutional Principles and Therefore Cannot be made right by Piecemeal Changes to the Insanity Defense. Houston Journal Health Law & Policy .
Clark v. Arizona, 126 S. Ct. 2709 (U.S. Supreme Court 2006).
Dix, G.E. (2005, December 4). Texas Must Refine Insanity Standard. San Antonio Express-News, p. 5H.
English, J. (1988). Light between Twilight and Dusk: Federal Criminal Law and the Volitiional Insanity Defense. Hasting Law Journal, 1-52.
Kari & Associates. (1994). Mental Illness and Criminal Insanity. Retrieved June 19, 2011, from http://karisable.com/crmh.htm
The Insanity Defense: Exploring Legal and Ethical Dimensions Introduction The insanity defense is a controversial legal strategy that allows individuals accused of committing a crime to claim that they were not mentally capable of understanding the nature of their actions or distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the offense. This defense is predicated on the belief that individuals suffering from severe mental illness or disorder should not be held criminally
Ethical Issues With the Insanity Defense Ethical Issues w / Insanity Defense The insanity defense may seem to have a distinct and real place in the legal world. However, defining who is insane, who is not insane, what the definition of insanity is, whether insanity is temporary or permanent, who should be liable and when and so forth are all burning questions that are extremely hard to answer in a scientific, dispassionate
Insanity' Defense The John Hinckley Trial and the Impact on the Insanity Defense Purpose of Insanity Defense The theory that suffices the insanity defense involves the norm that most individuals can choose to follow the law. However, mental instability deprives individuals the ability to make rationale choices thereby they cannot be held accountable for their actions. Such groups of persons require special treatment as opposed to detention in prisons. The use of
When does insanity excuse criminal liability? A defendant has an excuse for liability, says Paul Robinson, in his book Criminal Law Defenses, when he or she is acting involuntarily and their own disability causes him or her to mistakenly or unknowingly violate a criminal prohibition. This person does not know whether his or her behavior is wrong or criminal (Robinson 222). This is in contrast to what is called a character-based
However, this Court also recognizes that mental illness oftentimes differs from other immutable characteristics, such as mental retardation and age, in that a defendant oftentimes has the ability to control mental illness through medical interventions. While there is tremendous evidence of Panetti's deteriorated mental state, there is very little evidence to support Panetti's assertions that he was insane at the time of the murders. Though there are serious questions regarding
Pre-Sentence Investigation Defense Attorney Jim Aiken Narcotics Detective Homicide Detective Miranda The Miranda rights were formulated in 1966 by the U.S. Supreme court after a case between Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda rights relate to the frights of an individual when that person is being taken into custody by the police and before that individual is being questioned. The individual should be read out and told about his rights according to the Fifth Amendment so that