Mind over Matter
- Submitted by: Bryant85
- Views: 514
- Category: English: Novels
- Date Submitted: 08/04/2013 06:05 PM
- Pages: 2
- Report this Essay
Mind Over Matter
PSY/270
Tashaunda Bryant
July 18, 2013
Elizabeth Cole
The term mental illness and schizophrenic mental disorder to an individual who has
committed a crime does not lessen in the legal sense a patient’s capacity for knowing right and
wrong. While the term insanity does mean the individual does not have the right mental state to
know the difference between right and wrong. Individuals who suffer from mental defects and
mental diseases in which a person experiences hallucinations. From what I read in the article
Mcnaughten’s rule stated that a person must completely be impaired because of a mental defect
or disease which has hinder them from understanding the nature of the crime they been
charged with and knowing the difference between right and wrong. In order for an individual to
use the insanity defense in their case they must have the mental state put to the test. Rational
and guilty is when the perpetrator is fully aware of the illegal and wrong doing of the action.
Guilty but insane is the term used when the individual is aware of how wrong their actions were,
but they are not able to gain control of their actions speeding out of control due to their mental
defect or disease. Guilty by reason of insanity can be used when person at hand who committees
the crime is suffering from a condition that is a result of their mental disease or defect. This
defect has impaired their ability to see right from wrong or the illegality of their actions when
they committed the crime. The verdict I would go with regarding the Clark case is guilty by
insanity. I go with this verdict because Clark admitted to having this type of premeditation
thoughts of killing the officer. Not to mention he also admitted to luring his victim into the
disturbance. After committing the crime he disposed his weapon and that shows he knew right
from wrong and what he did was wrong. My recommendation for Clark is that the court sentence...
PSY/270
Tashaunda Bryant
July 18, 2013
Elizabeth Cole
The term mental illness and schizophrenic mental disorder to an individual who has
committed a crime does not lessen in the legal sense a patient’s capacity for knowing right and
wrong. While the term insanity does mean the individual does not have the right mental state to
know the difference between right and wrong. Individuals who suffer from mental defects and
mental diseases in which a person experiences hallucinations. From what I read in the article
Mcnaughten’s rule stated that a person must completely be impaired because of a mental defect
or disease which has hinder them from understanding the nature of the crime they been
charged with and knowing the difference between right and wrong. In order for an individual to
use the insanity defense in their case they must have the mental state put to the test. Rational
and guilty is when the perpetrator is fully aware of the illegal and wrong doing of the action.
Guilty but insane is the term used when the individual is aware of how wrong their actions were,
but they are not able to gain control of their actions speeding out of control due to their mental
defect or disease. Guilty by reason of insanity can be used when person at hand who committees
the crime is suffering from a condition that is a result of their mental disease or defect. This
defect has impaired their ability to see right from wrong or the illegality of their actions when
they committed the crime. The verdict I would go with regarding the Clark case is guilty by
insanity. I go with this verdict because Clark admitted to having this type of premeditation
thoughts of killing the officer. Not to mention he also admitted to luring his victim into the
disturbance. After committing the crime he disposed his weapon and that shows he knew right
from wrong and what he did was wrong. My recommendation for Clark is that the court sentence...