The Insanity Plea
“The insanity defense traces its history to an 1843 assassination attempt on British Prime Minister Robert Peel.” Now, about a third of the states allow a “guilty by reason of insanity” plea (Witkin, 7). Fortunately, on the contrary to popular belief, only one percent of felony cases led to a ruling of “not guilty by reason of insanity.” When a killer is ruled “not guilty by reason of insanity,” they are simply turned loose to reek havoc on society as a whole, while the victims’ families must deal with the pain and suffering. I will therefore argue in favor of the proposition that the insanity defense be abolished. First, it is very hard to judge whether or not a subject is insane. In the case of Kevin E. Reichardt, a sophomore from the University of North Carolina, who was killed by Wendell Williamson, Williamson was found “not guilty by reason of insanity.” Psychiatrists all agreed the fact that Williamson was indeed insane at the time of the murder. But one of the defense mental health experts testified on the stand that her decision was the best guess. Typically, experts will generally tell what state of mind they “feel” or “think” the defendant is in (Schlosser, 50). One cannot deem someone insane just by beliefs.
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Freud Brownfield, Washington DC, Robert Peel, Williamson Williamson, insanity defense, , death penalty, guilty reason insanity, guilty reason, reason insanity, insanity plea, Mark Science, Human Events, World Report, USA Magazine, Behavior Personality, ruled guilty reason, subject insane, mental institute, mock jurors, brownfield 10, indeed insane,
Approximate Word count = 1059
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
 |
