Talk:Insanity defense
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To a non-lawyer, this page is now looking to be a real mish-mash of general principles, US case law and history in various jurisdictions.
Wouldn't it be better as
- general principle (insanity)
- history/case law US
- history/case law GB
....
- general principle (intoxication)
- history/case law US
- history/case law GB
....
etc
jimfbleak 13:21 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
____________________________________
I changed "defenss" back to defenses. I don't know why it was changed.
Yes, this article on the insanity defense does seem to be a little disorganized. Maybe the opening paragraph should not bring in the idea of an "incompetence defense." Later in the article, incompetence is distinguished from insanity, but incompetence seems to be at the time of the trial, whereas insanity is at the time of the crime. I don't know it both ideas need to be in this article.
Also, there seems to be too many major headings toward the end. Maybe all the rules, acts and tests at the end could be put in chronological order in a section called History of the law."
Just an idea from a non-lawyer. Norm2 July 17, 2003.
Contents |
[edit] Psychiatric Treatment
In Foucha v. Louisiana (1992) which "supreme court" made this ruling? This is important as this is an international site and there is a "supreme court" in almost every country. 64.26.170.107 07:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The case of Foucha v. Louisiana was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. I am a trial attorney and am familiar with that case.Sinmeta 18:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
Merged External link from Plea of temporary insanity to this page. Plea of temporary insanity currently redirects to this page as it was a stub and poorly written at that. -- Long, Tall Texan 23:40, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Non-US rules
We definitely need examples of non-US rules. David.Monniaux 19:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I absolutely concur. This article is US-centric, although it is informative and interesting. Unfortunately, I do not have much knowledge at all of non-American legal systems, or I would try to fix it myself. -- disbomber 21:07 PST PDT, 22 May 2005
This is completely US-centric. This phrase in the intro says it all "The insanity defense is available in most jurisdictions that respect human rights and have a rule of law". Implying that if the insanity defense is not available, then the jurisdiction probably doesn't respect human rights or have a rule of law. How ridiculous. -- 66.171.76.140 23:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unproven statistics
The paragraph citing statistics regarding the declining use of the insanity defense did not attempt to prove this notion. It appears to have been based on specific research, but no study was cited. A study of changes in trends regarding the use of this legal defense, as well as a poll regarding public perceptions of same, seem to be referenced. I removed the paragraph. I hope that whoever found the original statistics will put them back up and cite them correctly. I don't mean to be a stickler--it's just that the statistics sound arbitrary and less believable without an actual citation. I also made some minor grammar edits. disbomber 21:06 PST PDT, 22 May 2005
[edit] Arizona: Alcohol/drugs preclude consent
When I lived in Arizona, I heard from a reliable source in local government that a fairly recent Arizona state law says that consent given for sex ("yes, I want to do it", etc.) is legally not considered valid if the person giving consent was under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time. This is relevant to the article's section on temporary insanity through alcohol/drug influence, but unfortunately I can't find an official cite regarding this law. Can anyone--especially Arizona lawyers--help with this? -- disbomber 21:12 PST PDT, 22 May 2005
This has nothing to do with any insanity defence. An insanity defence to a charge of rape would be made on behalf of the offender. Instead, this relates to the capacity of the victim to give consent: that someone seriously intoxicated by drugs or alcohol may not be presumed to have freely given valid consent to sexual activity is not peculiar to Arizona. NRPanikker 16:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] History of the insanity defense
I haven't really found time to check this definitively but surely:
- However, in the United States, the pioneer in the insanity defense could be credited to New Hampshire Chief Justice, Charles Cogswell Doe. In Ford v. Wainwright (1975) the US Supreme Court ruled that insane prisoners cannot be executed.
- (my emphasis) cannot be right. Definitely not "1975". I suspect it's a typo for "1875". Cutler 09:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Actually the Supreme Court decision is Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) and I have no idea why this case is in the history section. David91 10:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- The article read, and still reads, like Ford v. Wainwright was a Charles Cogswell Doe judgement. Cutler 11:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Under "History" it would be informative to have citation of the first case where the M'Naghten Rules were recognised in the U.S.. Cutler 09:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Insanity defense in murder cases
removed: 60-70% of all insanity pleas are not in murder cases.
I have no idea where this statistic came from, because other resources I saw said just the opposite, so I removed it. If someone can cite the source, that's great, but until then, I've included below what I found that says otherwise.
About a third of the way down the page on Crime Library's information on the insanity defense: "But since the insanity defense is utilized almost exclusively in murder cases (it is extremely rare in any other type of offense), the publicity it receives is far out of proportion to its use."
Katsesama 03:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Diminished responsibility
I've added a brief link to Diminished responsibility at the end of the opening paragraph of the main page, because this is a closely related topic. I don't know if the link could be added in a better way. (Peter Ells 23 August 2006.)
[edit] In fiction?
This section seems to add nothing valuable to the article. I would suggest deleting it. Tvaughan1 22:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Name of article?
Why is the name of this article "Insanity defence" when it is in the category of "Criminal defenses" and the opening sentence says "Insanity defenses"? I think it should be changed to "Insanity defense". Comrade4ยท2 03:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree, the title should be "Insanity defense". "Defence" is the less common variant overall, though more prevalent in the UK. Can someone move this? --S0uj1r0 04:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
I reverted to the last edit because of vandalism...
"Stay away from Texas"??? lol
Looking at the history it seems to happen alot in this artical....
StarDolph 05:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
