How does an insanity defense actually work?
968572
Because it works so rarely.  "A few cans short of a six pack " doesn't do it as some of the recent murder cases prove.  That woman who killed her kids, called the cops and told them she was saving them from the devil, had been committed several times and was under psych care, and she couldn't get off on an insanity defense, and she was clearly out of touch with reality. \nThe real question was, to me anyway, why did her husband get no time at all when it was he who insisted she have more children when it always sent her to a mental institution?
1001618
Law enforcement and people with severe mental illnesses\n\nSUMMARY: A natural outgrowth of a mental health system that withholds needed treatment until a person with a mental illness becomes dangerous is that police officers and sheriff’s deputies are forced to become front line mental health workers. The safety of both law enforcement officers and citizens is compromised when law enforcement responds to crises involving people with severe mental illnesses who are not being treated. In 1998, law enforcement officers were more likely to be killed by a person with mental illness than by an assailant with a prior arrest for assaulting police or resisting arrest. And people with mental illnesses are killed by police in justifiable homicides at a rate nearly four times greater than the general public.\n\n* * *\n\nLaw enforcement officers are the first responders\n\nThere is no question that law enforcement officers are increasingly the ones responding to people with mental illnesses who are in crisis. Most state laws permit law enforcement officers to take these individuals into custody and transport them to hospitals if they meet the legal criteria for psychiatric evaluation.1\nIn 1976, the New York City Police Department took approximately 1,000 "emotionally disturbed persons" to hospitals for psychiatric evaluation. By 1998, this number had increased to 24,787.2\n\nA survey of sheriffs in Virginia disclosed that virtually all survey participants had encountered arrestees with psychiatric illnesses.3 Sheriffs in California reported that 9 percent of emergency calls were related to a mental illness crisis.4 The number of police responses to complaints about “emotionally disturbed persons” in New York City rose from 20,843 in 1980, to 46,845 in 19885, to 64,424 in 1998.6\n\nIn Florida, law enforcement officers respond to people with mental illnesses who are in crisis by having them assessed under the state’s mental health treatment law, the Baker Act. In 2000, there were 34 percent more Baker Act cases (80,869) than DUI arrests (60,337). Florida law enforcement officers alone initiate nearly 100 Baker Act cases each day. That is comparable to the number of aggravated assault arrests for the state in 2000 (111 per day) and 40 percent more than the arrests for burglary (71 per day).7\n\nSafety of officers is jeopardized\n\nIn 1998, people with mental illnesses killed law enforcement officers at a rate 5.5 times greater than the rest of the population.8\n\nIn 1998, law enforcement officers were more likely to be killed by a person with a mental illness (13 percent) than by assailants who had a prior arrest for assaulting police or resisting arrest (11 percent).9\n\nSince 1998, six law enforcement officers have lost their lives in encounters with assailants with mental illnesses in the Washington, DC metropolitan area alone.10\n\nSafety of people with mental illness is jeopardized\n\nPeople with severe mental illnesses are killed by police in justifiable homicides at a rate nearly four times greater than the general public.11\n\nIn Phoenix, incidents in which police used force with mentally ill people tripled between 1998 and 2003, continuing to rise despite a training program introduced in 2001 to teach officers about mental illness and how to appropriately respond to a mentally ill individual in crisis. In 2002, 30 chronically mentally ill people had confrontations with Phoenix police that ended with force, from physical restraint to shooting.12\n\nNearly one third of those killed in police shootings in New York City in 1999 were mentally ill.13\n\nA review of 30 cases of people shot and killed by police in Seattle disclosed that one-third of the people showed signs of being emotionally disturbed or mentally ill at the time of the incident.14\n\n“Suicide by cop”\n\nThere are also many cases where individuals with mental illnesses provoke police into killing them. This is now commonly called “suicide by cop.”
105566
Check Dis Site\n\nhttp://www.geocities.com/yielding_insanity/answer.html
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.
90522
?  \n\nIf woman KILLS the perpetrator, then the perp is dead, not the woman.  Or are they both dead?\n\nIf the perp is dead, there won't be an arrest. Because he or she is DEAD.  But there will be a criminal reports filed and other legal/court issues.  \n\nIf you want to know how how the woman would defend herself in court, she needs a lawyer, who would most likely plea Self Defense on her behalf.\n\nIf you want to know about Victim Restitution, you have the check the laws for your particular state or country to make the proper applications.
448379
Everyone, including psychiatrists, are allowed to plead insanity.  But, keep in mind that "insanity" is actually a legal term, not a medical term.  Interestingly, a lawyer is probably more qualified to determine insanity than a psychiatrist.  \n\n"Insanity" means that someone is of unsound mind for any legal transaction, including imprisonment.
691328
A "5150" is a legal code that permits a person to be placed in an in-patient mental health unit without their consent.  It is only used in cases where the person is a danger to himself ( suicide) or to others (homicide or brutal assualt)\n\nIt is for a limited time only (72 hours) in California.  If the person has not improved within the 72 hours, then the medical facility personnel must file a case with the Court for an additional hold of up to fourteen days.   After that they must return to Court,if any more involuntary holds are deemed necessary.   It does not mean "crazy."  It means the person is not capable of caring for him/her self at that time, or poses a threat to other people.
18176
Hi,\nThe first part of your question requires a legal answer. Only courts can rule a person to be insane. However, people who are currently using meth frequently are a danger to themselves or others. This is a powerful drug that alters the mental state of the user in addition to being highly addictive. Please seek immediate professional help for your friend. Good luck.
797410
Too many issues to open that can of worms. However, there are some loopholes in the current system, for example it may be possible to bring different charges for the same crime like manslaughter instead of murder, depends on your luck with the judge since much of law today is judicial discretion & bench precedent. It a person gets off and then confesses (on tape, provable), if that person testified at the trial and said they were innocent, s/he could be charged with perjury among other things. It would be very foolish to confess though, because even if the person gets off legally, there are still civil lawsuits and consequences that are not so easily dismissed.
105462
You are not guilty as long as you can demonstrate that you have used the minimum necessary force to stop a criminal from causing serious bodily harm or death to another.  The affirmative defense is called "defense of others" and it can, under the conditions I have presented here, be a complete or partial defense to assault, battery, attempted murder, manslaughter, murder and other related such crimes.
193689
depends in what manner they are unfit...you mean mentally incompetent (insane)...then they will be dealt with in other ways
810270
Usually medication and they may have to try several to get the right one or combination of drugs to help.  It is a severe form of mental illness and it takes medication to keep the person from acting on thoughts and feelings when they are having a psychotic episode and hopefully to prevent more episodes or at least the severity. It is hard to treat and takes a Psychiatrist to diagnose and prescribe and the person may have to be admitted to be evaluated and treated with medication and therapy.
748927
the psychiatrist...\n\nseries of tests will determine whether they are insane or not... this is then proven to the jury / judge / defense lawyers / plaintiff lawyers
238992
In real life, you would have a state (or foreign country's)law that explained what the prosecution needs to prove for murder (so you could show how the prosecution will fail to prove one or more parts of the crime), and probably also laws that describe what you would need to show for various defenses (such as insanity) in case the prosecution proved Macbeth did it.  But I don't know if they gave you any laws to use for your project.  (Will there be an actual jury deciding the case?  If so, will they be given instructions about murder and insanity?  If so, you would probably like to see those ahead of time, so you will know what you will be trying to convince them of.)\n\nAnyway, in general, I think you want to think through what your case will be like (who will the witnesses be, and what you believe they will say), and give a good overview to the jury, so they will understand what is going on.  If everthing you say will be backed up by testimony in the case, you are on good footing.  (You can actually tell the jury about the specific witnesses they will hear from.)  And if you can also sum up your whole position in one or two sentences that give the gist of why Macbeth should be found not guilty, that can help a lot.\n\nSince you are going second with your opening statement, you can also listen to the prosecutor's opening statement first.  If you have good responses to some of his or her points, you can try to work those into your opening statement.  That's hard (because you have to think of it at the last minute, right before you stand up, and decide where to mention it in your opening statement), but it can be really impressive.  And maybe you can kind of guess what the prosecutor will say ahead of time, so you can get a big head start on that.\n\n-------\nSince you said it's all written work, maybe try (if possible) to do the analysis of the accusations first.  Then do the closing, based on the analysis.  Then do the opening statement last, when you will know what your analysis is and where it's leading.  Then you really can "preview" your case in the opening statement, as Uppity suggested.\n\nIt would still be nice to know what the exact laws are, but if there aren't any given, you can probably base the analysis on facts from the play, general knowledge about murder and/or insanity, and what seems fair and right.  If you were on a jury, what are the things that would make you want to acquit Macbeth?
305947
It depends on a ton of stuff. Was a weapon used? Is it state or local court? If a weapon or something can be perceieved as a weapon you are looking at roughly 5 years. Also if the person was permanantly injured they can try you under something different... forgot what it was called.. but they can get you for up to 20 years for that, though they rarely do.. give me a few and I will remember what that was called, its an odd word.\n\n\n-I think it's called "Malice" you never see it used in court anyhow, the sentences are pretty high, 99% plea to something lesser.
869620
If the male were to sue the female for damages, that is a civil action.  The defense of temporary insanity is used in criminal proceedings.  It generally would not apply to a civil proceeding.  However, the defense of temporary insanity is (contrary to what you see on television and the movies) extremely rare.  Some states do not allow it at all.  Others, just like the "permanent" insanity defense, restrict it considerably.  \n\nMental anguish is a tort.  I think it unlikely under the circumstances that a jury would give her much for a mental anguish claim.  The fact that its a marriage that is obviously in trouble, and he would be able to produce his own evidence, would problably not make the case a viable case, IMHO.\n\nThe laws governing the above vary greatly from state to state.  For the most accurate information, you should consult an attorney who is licensed in your state.  If you need a referral, contact your local or state bar association.
564602
unless and until the person is mentally disturbed he or she cannot make attempt against anyones life.