Forensic Assessments in Criminal Cases: The Insanity Defense

Legally, an individual has to be sane so that they can be held accountable for their actions (Jacquin, 2016). The insanity defense is valid if the defendant was not sane at the time that the offense occurred which is caused by a mental disorder, reasoning obstruction or serious disruption of consciousness and thus cannot comprehend the real state of their actions due to the incapability to judge (Jacquin, 2016). An individual that is insane means that they never held a guilty mentality. For case 1 it is evident that Davidson meets the insanity criteria. This is because he did not comprehend that his actions were illegal since his judgmental ability was affected by Schizophrenia is a mental disorder. In other words, the experienced relapse affected the defendant’s conscious mind. This means that his actions were fueled by the mental behavior and this being a psychological illness he best qualifies to be categorized as insane. In addition, he has the inability to appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions which thus shows that he was not able to control his response and never acted in free will.

In the case of Davidson, I choose to use McNaugton’s definition. McNaughton asserts that insanity is when the individual never understood the state of their actions as being wrong because of their mental defect (Jacquin, 2016). This definition suits the offender since at the time that the offense occurred he was experiencing a psychological disorder that was mainly fueled by Schizophrenia. He would not, therefore, be able to control their behavior nor understand the wrongness of such as act in general. This is not, therefore, a faked condition as he has no competence to control his mental demands which have reached the chronic stage.

On the other hand, for case 2 it is evident that Jacobs meets the insanity defense criteria. This means that the defendant is not accountable for his actions because of the constant psychiatric illness at the time that the illegal acts were conducted. The defendant is associated with a diminished ability because he does not have the motive that is needed to conduct the crime but he had some degree of free will on the ground that his family had been killed on the assumption that he failed to protect them and therefore he wished that he would be punished for the mistake. Due to the psychological disorder that is ceased by depression, this affected his control in some way but this does not imply that he was not willing to engage in the activities despite the fact that he was fully aware of their illegality (Jacquin, 2016).

Brawner’s definition of insanity is suitable for the case. This is because of the psychological defect that resulted from depression the offender is not able to acknowledge the illegality of the act and he has no ability to control his behaviors (Jacquin, 2016). In that, in order to be considered sane, the offender should have full understanding and judgment of their actions when the crime was committed (Jacquin, 2016). However, in the case, Jacobs would not be able to control his actions as he was mainly driven by the psychological defect that obstructed his ability to make decisions or substantial judgment without fail. He, therefore, acted in a manner that was not rational due to the mental illness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference

Jacquin, K. (2016). Assessment of Insanity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S9XkaZmuzw&feature=youtu.be