what is insanity defense?
113333
If you are accused of a crime,a lot of people try to use this defence as away to get a lesser sentence.  They say that they were temporarily insane;not in their right frame of mind when they committed the crime. Then they usually have to be evaluated by a psychiatrist to gaet their input for court.
754569
Unfortunately there is no such thing as 'innocent due to insanity'. Insanity is a defence in criminal law and the rules governing the definition of insanity are complex and somewhat archaic, they hang very loosely on the definition of ' adisease of the mind',(known as the M'Naughten rules). A successful plea of insanity does not lead to automatic acquital, rather it merely has an effect on sentence - prison or secure unit hospitalisation. In fact pleading insanity can be more onerous than pleading some other defence. Murder sentences are commonly 20 years (life?). With good behaviour those convicted of murder may be out in 10. They are imprisoned at her majesty's (home secretary's) pleasure and decisions to release are at the home office's discretion. A successful plea of insanity will lead to hospitalisation for a period of time in excess of this, as it is often harder to persuade doctors and the HO that your insanity has healed itself than it is to prove that you are rehabilitated though imprisonment.\nProvocation is far better defence than insanity as all that has to be proved is an instantaneous and temporary loss of self control - such as in cases involving battered wife syndrome. Then there's automatism, which is a more interesting defence to play with. This involves involuntary bodily actions that lead to the execution of a crime. There is no mens rea, just an actus reus - the two elements needed to establish criminal culpability. For example, causing death by dangerous driving, when your faculties were temporarily denied by a heart attack or some other involuntary act.\n\nJack Straw may have said Osama Bin Laden was psychotic but as he is not a practicing psycho-analyst who has the opportunity to appraise OBL, then his comments are merely conjecture and popularist in the extreme.\n\nHave fun researching this question\n\nHugh G LL.B LL.M MBA
699832
There are four distinct subcategories of mental disorder stipulated in Section 1 of the Act - mental illness, mental impairment, severe mental impairment and psychopathic disorder.\n\nThese categories are not well defined in the Act, indeed, mental illness is not defined at all. Mental impairment is defined as "a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind ... which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning and is associated with abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the person concerned". Severe mental impairment has a similar definition but with the word "significant" replaced with "severe". Psychopathic disorder is defined as a "persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including significant impairment of intelligence) resulting in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct".\n\nThese categories do not necessarily correspond to medical categories of mental disorder such as those outlined in ICD-10 or DSM-IV; the type of mental disorder afflicting a particular person is very much left up to the clinical judgement of the individual doctor. However, the category "mental illness" is thought by most psychiatrists to cover schizophrenia, anorexia nervosa, major depression, bipolar disorder and other similar illnesses, "(severe) mental impairment" to cover mental retardation (learning disability) and "psychopathic disorder" to cover the personality disorders.\n\nThere are very few exclusions to these definitions of mental disorder. The Act states that one cannot be suffering from a mental disorder "by reason only of promiscuity or other immoral conduct, sexual deviancy or dependence on alcohol or drugs".
831995
One time I was convicted of public nudity for taking a poop in a toilet that was in the showroom of a hardware store.  I plead the insanity defense and got off with a warning.
967289
Texas has the most stringent test of any state: "The defense must prove not only that an individual has a serious mental illness, but also that the individual did not know that his or her conduct was wrong in the eyes of the law."
221606
Actually it sounds like schizophrenia. They should trying doing a civil committment. All they need to do is contact the county mental health department and tell them what is going on. They can lock him up and do an evaluation, then they would go before a judge. If the judge finds that the person is a danger to himself or others they can force him to recieve treatment and he won't be able to check himself out.
879137
it's a mental disorder
1176842
He isn't convicted of murder on reasons of insanity.  He is convicted of being insane and then sent to a mental hospital.\nWhy plead insanity if your still going to be convicted?
934241
If he ever makes threats to you or others, or appears that he may be a threat to his own well-being, you can have him arrested as a threat (cops and professionals call this being "Baker-Act'ed", based on the law that allows authorities to arrest a mentally deranged suspect).\n\nPeople who are apprehended in a psychotic state are taken in for short term assessment (usually 24 hours); if they are diagnosed as mentally ill, either acute or chronic, they are taken to short-term facilities for analysis and to allow time for families to try and arrange long term treatment through a residential or other long-term facility for adolescents and minors. \n\nIn some cases, insurance covers mental care, both residential and counseling; otherwise, rely on the state's social services organizations - either this boy gets saved now, or the police will be cleaning up after him in the future - God forbid at the expense of someone else...
1176652
I don't believe there is any such thing as "perfectly sane" It seems like a contradiction. But then I am crazy. LOL\n\n"Insane people are always sure that they are fine. It is only the sane people who are willing to admit that they are crazy."   \n-Nora Ephron \n\n"Insanity -- a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world."   \n-R. D. Lang \n\nNorman Bates: She just goes a little mad sometimes. We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?
423626
Suicide is NOT ILLEGAL.  It does VIOLATE mental standards and will result in you being LOCKED in a MENTAL WARD, but you DO NOT goto jail for attempting suicide.  This is why insurance policies must exclude it or they have to pay for.  If it was illegal the policy wouldn't have to pay since it was earned through comission of a crime.  \n\nNow assisting in a suicide for someone else will land you in jail on charges of murder/attempted murder.\n\nEDIT:Anyone whos says it's illegal I'd be happy to say I'm wrong if you show me one law stating that.  It's a violation of mental standards, but that results in a mental lockup NOT jail.  There'd be no way to make it illegal since one would be not guilty by reason of insanity in the US.
891457
Legal definitions of insanity vary by state. There are basically 2, although some states make slight modifications. They are the McNaughton Rule and the ALI rule. Both require a defendent who is charged with a crime to meet certain requirements in order to be found legally "insane." (As an aside, "insane" is a legal determination. We have come to use the term as a synonym for "crazy," but in essence technically it means the mental state of an individual at the time of committing a crime. But I digress.) A defendant could certainly attempt to meet the definition of insanity in a court of law by claiming sleep deprivation; however, regardless of cause the defendent has to be able to prove some variation of s/he did not know the difference between right and wrong or that s/he could not have acted otherwise than s/he did. These concepts underlie most definitions of insanity. \n\nI think it would be extremely unlikely that one could prevail on a claim that sleep deprivation was the cause of insanity. Insanity is an extremely difficult verdict to "win." It is invoked in only about 2-3% of all criminal trials and "successful" in about 1% of those. For example, Jeffrey Dahmer was not found insane. \n\nHere is a site that deals more with legal insanity: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/states.html
180521
Sanity and intelligence are two different things. Insane people can be very intelligent. And insanity is not really temporary. People who are insane and are intelligent enough not to always act insane are the ones we call temporarily insane!\n\nNow I have a headache!
440841
They say it's a fine line between the two. I think sanity is defined by society, or other people in our circle, as acting according to a norm. Insanity is deviating extremely from the norm. We may all be judged by our peers as sane or acting insane, but ultimately it is a medical (psychiatric) judgment of insanity that qualifies someone as insane. And for some, insanity can come and go quite quickly, making even that individual wonder at his own sanity.
517206
HI MJ- Unfortunately, the law states that he can be charged, regardless of his state at the time. The only defense would be temporary insanity, but that has not worked in the past for people who were unaware of their actions due to too much alcohol or illegal drugs, so it would not likely be usable in this case either.  What may happen is that he could plead to a lesser charge due to impaired judgment brought on by a combination of a small amount of alcohol in conjunction with a legal benzodiazepene (I assume here that he had this as a prescription, and was not taking it illegally)- However, even that is iffy, because all people given BZDs are strongly warned about taking it with alcohol, and on the bottle itself there are strong warnings.  If he were using the drug illegally, then that pretty much shoots down all defenses.  But, in the end, just because he did not remember, or even know what he was doing, does not mean he will not be held legally accountable-he definitely will...how strongly will depend on his past record, the reason he was using the BZD, and the severity of the crime.  Get a good lawyer and try to plead a lesser charge based on reduced judgment due to ignorance of the drug interaction effect.  I just hope the BZD was a prescription for him.  Good luck, MJ
555227
nope...go with temporary insanity...or if it doesn't fit u must acquit...(the best defense line ever)
285713
Insanity is fun!  Go with the feeling and enjoy!