Two Views of the Insanity Defense Essay by The Research Group

Two Views of the Insanity Defense
This paper presents pro and con views of allowing the insanity defense in the criminal justice system and concludes with the argument favoring the continued use of the insanity defense.
# 17421 | 1,125 words | 2 sources | 1982 | US
Published on Feb 09, 2003 in Law (Evidence) , Psychology (Social) , Law (Criminal)


$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now

From the Paper:

"Alan Stone in Chapter 17, begins his discussion of the insanity defense by defining the basic nature of the law, and the basic nature of psychiatry. He argues that the law is formal, rigid, traditional, objective and judgmental; psychiatry is flighty, expansive, unconventional, subjective, and understanding. There seems to be little room for common ground. Stone intimates, that what the law wanted from psychiatric investigation, was rock-bound methodology that explained aberrant behavior. During the 1950s the Durham decision further cemented the relationship between the two disciplines. The California Supreme Court seemed more willing to be lead by psychiatric reasoning, giving more credence to the insanity plea, and bring the concept of diminished capacity to the fore."

Cite this Essay:

APA Format

Two Views of the Insanity Defense (2003, February 09) Retrieved April 18, 2021, from https://www.academon.com/essay/two-views-of-the-insanity-defense-17421/

MLA Format

"Two Views of the Insanity Defense" 09 February 2003. Web. 18 April. 2021. <https://www.academon.com/essay/two-views-of-the-insanity-defense-17421/>

Comments