Insanity Flaws in the Legal System

Insanity Flaws in the Legal System

This paper discusses the flaws in the Texas death penalty statute that allow a person as mentally ill as Andre Thomas to be sentenced to death. Andre Thomas was a teenage father with a history of multigenerational mental illness, poverty, and abuse. When the mother of his child left him, he became suicidal and was committed to a mental hospital (Bookman, 2013). Psychiatrists determined he was severely mentally ill. When no one was watching, he walked off.

The insanity defense is common in instances like this. It acts as a shielding mechanism when a person’s mental illness prevents them from expertise in the character or outcomes of their movements (Dewi, 2020). The madness defense, utilized in the diffusion of historical contexts, is based totally on the perception of a lack of duty. The M’Naghten rule is the maximum widely well-known definition of insanity and is used in many jurisdictions nowadays. Segment 8.01 of the Texas Penal Code describes the regulations governing madness (DeMatteo et al., 2022). An extreme mental illness or defect, in line with this clause, is an affirmative protection to prosecution if the defendant was unaware that their conduct became wrong at the time of the act.

However, being insane is a tough fashionable to prove. The offender has to demonstrate that they had a severe mental disease or disability that prevented them from understanding their wrong moves (Dewi, 2020). As a result, the defendant suffers if they act or say something that suggests they had been aware that what they had been doing turned into the wrong (Bookman, 2013). In Texas, voluntary drunkenness is also not a defense; therefore, a person who committed a crime while high or intoxicated cannot use insanity as a defense. This is a serious problem in the system since drugs greatly impact how people think.

Doctor specialists for the prosecution contended throughout the trial that Thomas’s personality problem rather than a serious mental condition was to blame for his acts. While the prosecution contended that Thomas knew the gravity of his actions and their repercussions, the defense maintained that a profound mental disorder rendered him incapable of comprehending their significance (Bookman, 2013). Unfortunately, the final decision rested with the jury, who lacked the expertise to navigate complex mental health issues and render a sound judgment. This highlights a critical flaw in the system, making it challenging for jurors to grasp intricate mental health matters and arrive at informed decisions. It is unreasonable to assume that judges lacking mental health expertise comprehend the intricacies of such instances (DeMatteo et al., 2022). Figuring out and treating intellectual illnesses fall within the domain of intellectual health professionals who have passed through years of human conduct and psychology schooling. Unfortunately, jurors typically lack such knowledge and are often more prone to rendering decisions based on their emotions (Dewi, 2020). The verdict in a case can be skewed if the jury’s man or woman viewpoints and subjective reviews are given extra weight than the relevant, genuine evidence.

Following a verdict, a jury must decide whether to impose a life sentence or the demise penalty. Knowing the nuances of the defendant’s mental illness and how it may have affected their behavior throughout the crime is important for the jury to have (Dewi, 2020). A decision primarily based on misconceptions or stereotypes instead of real case information may result from a lack of understanding regarding the defendant’s intellectual state. Examining the current device that places choices approximately mental health within the arms of the jury is vital to make certain impartiality and sound judgment for all events worried. Andre’s defense relied on an insanity plea, arguing that he was not responsible for his actions due to his mental illness (DeMatteo et al., 2022). However, in Texas, voluntary intoxication is not an insanity defense, and the prosecution argued that Andre was well aware he was behaving wrongly, pointing to his history of mental illness apart from any substance abuse.

Despite the protection’s arguments, the jury rejected Andre’s madness plea, and he was discovered guilty and sentenced to loss of life. This judgment shows a flaw since no direct interpretation of insanity (Dewi, 2020). The law describes the conditions of Texas’s death penalty, which is not designed for rehabilitation and in which inmates spend maximum in their time in solitary confinement. Notwithstanding being recognized with paranoid schizophrenia on the loss of life row, Andre was still dealt with as a risky crook, and skeptics showed that he faked his mental illness (Bookman, 2013). The textual content indicates that while the prosecution argued that Andre’s crimes resulted from voluntary intoxication, his int