Mind_over_Matter

Mind Over Matter 1 John W. Wheeler III PSY/270 October 22, 2011 Ciby Kimbrough Truly there is a clear distinction between insanity and mental illness. Indeed the phrase insanity was created by the legal system, and when it is used in combination with the Mcnaughten rule it verifies that insanity is when an individual commits a crime and does not have the ability to interpret right from wrong in the aspect of the crime they committed. However, an individual might be mentally ill and still have the ability to decipher right from wrong; that would categorize that person not as insane but mentally ill. This rule is not able to be able used in defending the actions of an individual who consumes alcohol commits murder. Essentially, if an individual can not use this rule in defense of a situation where being intoxicated was an aspect of and a murder was committed, because this act is considered as the individual making a voluntary choice. However, such an individual might have been very intoxicated and was not able to make rational or lucid decisions, because he or she made the voluntary decision to be in that state of mind. Although, having a mental illness is not a voluntary decision and has the ability to alter an individual’s actions and thoughts. An individual is guilty and rational when he or she has the capacity to comprehend right and wrong and proceeds to commit a crime in which a guilty verdict is rendered. Indeed an individual who possesses their complete mental capacity and has the intent to commit a crime will create this type of verdict, and that person will definitely go to prison. Truly, a guilty verdict in which an individual possesses a mental illness and has the capacity to comprehend their actions are wrong is judged as guilty, but also insane. However, in this type of scenario the court recognizes that a person has a mental illness, but holds them accountable for their crime due to the aspect that there is insufficient proof that the individual did not have the ability to understand right from wrong, or lack of intent was existed when the crime was committed. Although this type of verdict would still cause an individual to still be incarcerated, the court would possibly find this individual guilty by reason of insanity. However, this type of plea will eliminate intent and that person will probably be sent to a mental health facility to get treatment for their particular mental disorder. Truly if I was the person presiding over this case I would use the evidence and the basis for my ruling. Indeed it was obvious to me that “Mr. Clark had the intention of killing the officer and indicated to creation of a trap to carry out this plan; the plan consisted of circling the block with loud music” (Gibeaut, 2006). However, Mr. Clark did possess the mental capacity to understand that he should pull over when the police are lights came on. As an example of using the evidence “Mr. Clark did use six rounds out of his gun and the hid his weapon” (Gibeaut, 2006). Additionally, based on the abovementioned facts and evidence, it illustrates that Mr. Clark had the ability to know his actions were wrong and had intent. Although he is definitely mentally ill nevertheless, my decision would be that he is insane, but also guilty. References Gibeaut, J. (2006). A Matter Over MIND. ABA Journal, 92(4), 32-39. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.