Lesson 12: Guilty or Insane? Attention James Holmes is accused of killing 12 movie goers in a rampage which riveted the nation to their TVs. The Defense is stating that Mr. Holmes was a promising graduate student who fell on hard times and literally "went crazy" as his life fell apart. Click HERE to read an article from the Chicago Tribune on Mr. Holmes status (May 8, 2013) Learning Outcomes Upon completion of this lesson's material, students will be able to:
Teaching What is normal? In Psychology we talk about three ways in which we decide what is normal:
The INSTITUTIONS that define what is normal include:
When one engages in activities that are considered abnormal to a specific reference group, the behavior is called "deviance". When that happens there are structures (formal and informal) that bring people back into line. "Deviance" means to act in ways OUTSIDE the NORMS Click HERE to explore each of the Sociological Perspectives on Deviance The same relationship exists between LAW and CRIME The Criminal Justice system is the SOCIAL CONTROL of our society that responds to deviance as defined by the law Mental Illness Consider two factors related to disease and personal liability for behavior:
Mental illness, nearly be definition, brings about behavior that is considered to be deviant. We tolerate some of it, but it can go to far and the person begins to "break the law". A person may be incarcerated (Blue Papered) for any one of three reasons:
You cannot be forced to go to the hospital simply for being "abnormal", unless you break a different law. The "Insanity Plea" Can mental illness bring on behavior that is criminal? This often talked about issue is actually not very common. The actual term used to describe this plea is when the defendant seeks a verdict of "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity" (NGRI). There are two different definitions that are used in court to describe this: In the Federal definition the defense in pursuit of the NGRI defense must demonstrate that due to the “disease or defect”, the defendant was unable to “appreciate…(the) wrongfulness of his acts”. In the ALI definition the defense much demonstrate that the individual could not “appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.” These are related constructs but could result in very different evaluations. Burden of proof is on the defendant and they must show through clear evidence that they are insane. Click HERE to read a student paper on this topic I wrote a paper for a Forensic Psychology class on this topic and applied the different definitions of the NGRI to both the case of Jeffrey Dahmer and to Mark Bechard. Click HERE to read the paper. Assessment Lesson 12 Quiz
Possible Class Discussion Read the student paper identified in the lesson. Contrast the early decisions based on the "good and evil", "wild beast", and "right and wrong" tests with the modern approach to insanity known as the McNaughton rule. Continue the discussion with an analysis of the "Irresistible Impulse Test", the "Durham Rule", the "ALI Test", "Diminished Capacity", and the "Guilty but Mentally Ill" movement. (Read the whole paper...it is very readable and straight forward, and all of this will make sense)
|