Insanity Defense

Background: Insanity defense is a tentative issue, involving emotional appeals while also needing concrete evidence to substantiate it, making it an extremely hard one to qualify. Both systems, judicial and jury, have their own pros and cons when faced with this defense. Most would argue that the insanity defense should be abolished, as measuring one's sanity is inherently challenging3; however, this plea is extremely important. It protects those who should not bear full criminal liability due to an unsoundness of mind from being placed in compromising situations and instead allows them to receive proper treatment and care. Providing these individuals with an environment they need to recover will be more beneficial, allowing them to not be …show more content…
In Singapore, the plea of Unsoundness of Mind is stated in Section 84 of the Penal Code: “Act of a person of unsound mind”. 84. What is the difference between a '' and a ''? Nothing is an offense which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.” This qualifies unsoundness of mind to be when someone, due solely to mental illness, does not understand that their actions are legally or morally wrong. For America, New York will be evaluated to make the comparison most similar. This state follows the Model Penal Code and places the burden of evidence on the defendant in the case of insanity defense, much like Singapore. In the New York Model Penal Code 40.151, it is stated that “A person lacks criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect when, at the time of the prohibited conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, that person lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either: 1. The nature and consequences of such conduct; or 2. That such conduct was wrong” This qualifies insanity defense to be when the individual does not fully understand what they are doing, why it is wrong, and the impact of their actions. Additionally, both courts only consider legal insanity4, which refers to mental abnormalities that would affect …show more content…
I will first consider the pros and cons of both systems, then look into case studies for the two differing systems. For the jury, this system is strongest when dealing with cases with high emotional appeal and morality. The jury is more likely to sympathize with the convicts and act as a voice for the people, allowing for a fairer verdict in certain cases. The Amadou Diallo case illustrates this point, as if not for the jury, the issues plaguing the time would have allowed the killing of this man to be excused by a judge. This emphasis on emotions when it comes to the jury is a double-edged sword. It causes the jury to be unpredictable and easily manipulated emotionally, leading to jurors valuing the more compelling story over facts and making irrational decisions driven by emotions. Jurors have less knowledge of the law, which may cause them to misunderstand evidence or look past important details. In Jonathan Fleming's case, he was wrongfully convicted and charged with second-degree murder, even though there was evidence such as plane tickets and postcards proving it was not possible. For the judge, this system is strongest when dealing with cases that are complicated and require vast legal knowledge. Using a judge system would be most fair when faced with a case that has contradicting events or trials with multiple pleas and defenses. Still, this could

Show More

The Insanity Defense