Insanity defense, science homework help

Insanity Defense

Human psychology
involves complex analyses and dynamic theories of cognition, personality, and
disorders. There is often a level of interpretation in psychological pursuits
and inquiries. This complexity can make it difficult to definitively,
objectively assess mental illness and insanity. This complicates the criminal
justice system, which relies on objective testimony and concrete evidence to
deliver fair convictions and sentencing. Questions about what constitutes a
“fair” conviction and sentence may arise when an offender has questionable
sanity, criminal responsibility, volition, or cognition.

For this
Discussion, consider whether or not the insanity defense should be a legitimate
plea in the criminal justice system.

Post by Day 4 your position on
whether or not the insanity defense should be a legitimate plea in the criminal
justice system. Provide specific examples to illustrate your points. Justify
your response with references to the Jeffrey Dahmer case, current literature,
and Learning Resources.

One and a half page with
at least two reference….

It is important that you cover all the topics identified in the
assignment. Covering the topic does not mean mentioning the topic BUT
presenting an explanation from the readings.

To get maximum points you need to follow the requirements listed for
this assignments 1) look at the page limits 2) review and follow APA rules
3) create SUBHEADINGS to identify the key sections you are presenting and
4) Free from typographical and sentence construction errors.

Readings

• Article: Chappell,
  D. (2010). Victimisation and the insanity defence: Coping with confusion,
  conflict and conciliation. Psychiatry, Psychology & Law, 17(1),
  39–51.
      
• Article: Felthous,
  A. R. (2010). Psychopathic disorders and criminal responsibility in the
  USA. European Archives of Psychiatry & Clinical Neuroscience,
  260, 137–141.
      
• Article:
  Gostin, L. O. (2007). “Old” and “new” institutions for persons with mental
  illness: Treatment, punishment or preventative confinement? Public
  Health, 122, 906–913.
      
• Article:
  Kinscherff, R. (2010). Proposition: A personality disorder may nullify
  responsibility for a criminal act. The Journal of Law, Medicine &
  Ethics, 38, 745–759. 
      
• Article:
  O’Meara, G. J. (2009). He speaks not, yet he says everything: What of
  that? Text, context, and pretext in state v. Jeffrey Dahmer. Denver
  University Law Review, 87(1), 97–137. 
      
• Article:
  Opgloff, J. R. P., Davis, M. R., Rivers, G., & Ross, S. (2007). The
  identification of mental disorders in the criminal justice system. Trends
  & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, (334), 1–6. 
      
• Article:
  Samuels, A., O’Driscoll, C., & Allnutt, S. (2007). When killing isn’t
  murder: Psychiatric and psychological defences to murder when the insanity
  defence is not applicable. Australasian Psychiatry, 15,
  474–479.
      
• Article:
  Slobogin, C. (2009). What purposes does the insanity defense serve, and
  are those purposes commensurate with current scientific knowledge
  regarding insanity?: A defense of the integrationist test as a replacement
  for the special defense of insanity. Texas Tech Law Review,
  42.
      
• Article:
  Wolfson, J. K. (2009). A psychiatrist’s commentary on Sell v. U.S., et
  al.: How did we get here, and where are we going? Journal of
  Psychiatry & Law, 37, 431–449.