http://glasses-justice.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
glasses-justice.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomhigh2010-07-29 03:19 pm
glasses-justice.livejournal.com) wrote in fandomhigh2010-07-29 03:19 pm
Entry tags:
Great Trials in History, Class #4, Period 5 (7-29)
Alex was somewhat distracted by her concerns about her client, still locked up in Gotham City, and the upcoming trial. That was, however, no excuse not to teach a full, competent class.
She did let it influence her selection of topic, however.
"Daniel M'Naghten," she began, "believed that a political group known as the Tories were persecuting him. He told this to friends, relatives, and local police officers, all of whom thought that he was suffering from delusions. As a matter of fact, he was. Unfortunately, this didn't stop him from drawing a pistol and firing at the Prime Minister's personal secretary, who died five days later."
Amazing that none of M'Naghten's friends or loved ones had confiscated his weapons.
"At trial, the defense showed that M'Naghten was severely mentally ill. They produced several witnesses to testify about the delusions that he had raved about, including, again, the police officers with whom he had lodged formal complaints. The jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity, and Daniel M'Naghten spent the rest of his life in an asylum.
"Public outrage was immediate, and furious. It always is, with insanity cases; the general public sees the defendant as 'getting away' with murder, and assumes that he or she is pretending insanity to escape culpability. As a result of the outcry, the British government tightened up its rules about insanity defense, coming up with the M'Naghten Rules, which essentially said that insanity, legally, would be defined as the inability to know right from wrong, or to understand that one's actions were wrong." She smiled, a touch wryly. "Since M'Naghten would have been convicted under those rules, the name is a touch ironic."
Legal precedents were strange things, at times.
"The rules eased up over the next century, but when a man named John Hinckley shot at the United States President, and was acquitted because of his own mental illness, public outcry once again lead to stricter rules about the insanity defense. The media sensationalizes these cases, which means the average citizen thinks that the insanity defense is common. It isn't, and fails far more than it succeeds."
Alex lifted her tea from her desk for a much-needed sip. "At what point is a person not legally or morally responsible for his or her actions, because of insanity? How do we reconcile the legal definition of sanity with the psychiatric approach to mental health? How can a government ensure that legitimately ill people are not punished, but clever criminals don't abuse the resulting loophole? Are there degrees of culpability at work? That's today's topic."
She did let it influence her selection of topic, however.
"Daniel M'Naghten," she began, "believed that a political group known as the Tories were persecuting him. He told this to friends, relatives, and local police officers, all of whom thought that he was suffering from delusions. As a matter of fact, he was. Unfortunately, this didn't stop him from drawing a pistol and firing at the Prime Minister's personal secretary, who died five days later."
Amazing that none of M'Naghten's friends or loved ones had confiscated his weapons.
"At trial, the defense showed that M'Naghten was severely mentally ill. They produced several witnesses to testify about the delusions that he had raved about, including, again, the police officers with whom he had lodged formal complaints. The jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity, and Daniel M'Naghten spent the rest of his life in an asylum.
"Public outrage was immediate, and furious. It always is, with insanity cases; the general public sees the defendant as 'getting away' with murder, and assumes that he or she is pretending insanity to escape culpability. As a result of the outcry, the British government tightened up its rules about insanity defense, coming up with the M'Naghten Rules, which essentially said that insanity, legally, would be defined as the inability to know right from wrong, or to understand that one's actions were wrong." She smiled, a touch wryly. "Since M'Naghten would have been convicted under those rules, the name is a touch ironic."
Legal precedents were strange things, at times.
"The rules eased up over the next century, but when a man named John Hinckley shot at the United States President, and was acquitted because of his own mental illness, public outcry once again lead to stricter rules about the insanity defense. The media sensationalizes these cases, which means the average citizen thinks that the insanity defense is common. It isn't, and fails far more than it succeeds."
Alex lifted her tea from her desk for a much-needed sip. "At what point is a person not legally or morally responsible for his or her actions, because of insanity? How do we reconcile the legal definition of sanity with the psychiatric approach to mental health? How can a government ensure that legitimately ill people are not punished, but clever criminals don't abuse the resulting loophole? Are there degrees of culpability at work? That's today's topic."
Re: Discussion #1: Defining Insanity - TRI04
Re: Discussion #1: Defining Insanity - TRI04
She hastened to add, "Assume, also as a given, that this person is provably psychotic in some manner -- not just inventing voices to escape criminal charges."
Re: Discussion #1: Defining Insanity - TRI04