WK5TA
Defense Team Paper
5
Defense Team Paper
Learning Team C believes that Stu Dents, the defendant is competent enough to stand trial because we believe that he is responsible for the murder of Uma Opee. The primary goal for the team is to prove he was aware that his actions were wrong from the beginning, both morally and illegally and also understood the consequences that accompany such an act of violence. Learning Team C does not believe that voluntary use of drugs has an effect on the condition of the mind of Stu Dents and there is not enough evidence to prove whether the defendant had used any drugs on the night in which the murder took place.
The defendant has been keeping a journal all along until the day before the murder and it is believed that he kept the journal because he knew he would kill Opee at some time. When the time came for trial, he can use an insanity plea, and since there is not enough evidence against him then he might win the case (Caplan, 2009). The only thing he did was hit an officer in the face and called him an alien and claimed he was God.
Under the state of California, there is no clear distinction between temporary and permanent insanity and the prime issue in the state of California is the condition or status of the defendant at the time of the crime. The process of determining insanity in the state of California is the Pronged M'Naghten rule. Under this rule, two conditions must be met to prove sanity of the defendant.
These conditions are:
The requirement that the defendant understands the nature and quality of his or her act.
The need for the defendant to different between what is right and wrong.
Any defendant who claims to have committed any crime and cannot meet the two-pronged above is declared to be statutorily insane.
There were some changes in the state of the California concerning the testing of the insanity defense. The amendment passed in the year 1994, which is called Model Penal Code prohibits the California court from determining insanity by personality, adjustment disorder, addition, seizure disorder or abuse of drugs and substances. The amendment states that the person under the influence of any of the above-listed condition is not morally upright and thus it will cause confusion in differentiating between insanity or influence from any of the above conditions (Rogers, 2010). Any defendant who is found insane at the time of crime may be declared not guilty because of insanity and in other cases the defendant might be found guilty. The judgment will be less severe because of the mental impairment which influenced his or her actions at the time of the crime.
Various steps ought to be taken so as to prove insanity of the defendant in the criminal law.
Some of the steps include:
Examination: medical examination is critical in the case that involves insanity as this will show is the defendant is insane or not. Physical examination may also help as people who are insane tend to do weird things.
Psychological tests: it is also important to involve psychologists in such cases since they are the professionals in this field of insanity and thus important source in bringing out the truth (Frandsen, 2011).
Testimonials: information of the criminal is also important, and such information can be obtained from the family members, friends, doctors or co-workers of the defendant. This is a group of people who already have the information of the accused, and they know the condition of the defendant whether he or she is insane or not.
References
Schmalleger, PH.D., F., & Hall, J.D., ED.D., D. E. (2014). Criminal Law Today (5th ed.). Retrieved from https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781323102657/cfi/0!/4/2/2@0:28.5.
Caplan, L. (2009). The insanity defense and the trial of John W. Hinckley, Jr. DR Godine.
Frandsen, D. (2011). Two steps past insanity: The expression of aggression in Death Metal music. Can I play with Madness.
Rogers, R. (2010). APA's position on the insanity defense: Empiricism versus emotionalism. American Psychologist.
