Mind_over_Matter

Mind Over Matter PSY/270 Tashaunda Bryant July 18, 2013 Elizabeth Cole The term mental illness and schizophrenic mental disorder to an individual who has committed a crime does not lessen in the legal sense a patient’s capacity for knowing right and wrong. While the term insanity does mean the individual does not have the right mental state to know the difference between right and wrong. Individuals who suffer from mental defects and mental diseases in which a person experiences hallucinations. From what I read in the article Mcnaughten’s rule stated that a person must completely be impaired because of a mental defect or disease which has hinder them from understanding the nature of the crime they been charged with and knowing the difference between right and wrong. In order for an individual to use the insanity defense in their case they must have the mental state put to the test. Rational and guilty is when the perpetrator is fully aware of the illegal and wrong doing of the action. Guilty but insane is the term used when the individual is aware of how wrong their actions were, but they are not able to gain control of their actions speeding out of control due to their mental defect or disease. Guilty by reason of insanity can be used when person at hand who committees the crime is suffering from a condition that is a result of their mental disease or defect. This defect has impaired their ability to see right from wrong or the illegality of their actions when they committed the crime. The verdict I would go with regarding the Clark case is guilty by insanity. I go with this verdict because Clark admitted to having this type of premeditation thoughts of killing the officer. Not to mention he also admitted to luring his victim into the disturbance. After committing the crime he disposed his weapon and that shows he knew right from wrong and what he did was wrong. My recommendation for Clark is that the court sentence him to an institute where he can be treated for his schizophrenia.