Research Question:
When a criminal gets a sentenced reduced due to “reason of insanity”, is this fair and legitimate?
This topic is very controversial and interesting because of the overall vagueness of what “insanity” really constitutes. In this paper it would be very crucial to get the opinion of different doctors/psychiatrists/psychologists on what it means to be so called insane. For some people, having a mental illness constitutes as being “insane”, but what if a murderer had all the resources to get help? What if a murderer with a mental illness took his/her medication, and fully knew what they were doing at the moment they murdered someone? Or if they just neglected to take his/her medication? These are very interesting questions and could be debated either way in explaining if someone is truly insane. I would integrate a case study in my paper in which a man got a sentenced reduced because of “reason of insanity” and study the true illness, if had one, this person had. It would also be reasonable to study how the insanity plea came about in American law and ultimately determine if pleading “reason of insanity” should be abolished in the American courts.
Although there are obviously different situations of people abusing this law and other situations where people probably had no control of murdering someone, I would have to make a clear argument on if or if not I believe pleading “reason of insanity” is a fair or unfair.
No comments:
Post a Comment