Recent orders
Criminal Justice- Major Tests for Insanity
Major Tests of Insanity
(Author’s name)
(Institutional Affiliation)
Introduction
The criminal justice procedure exempts criminals from full penalty on account that a defendant claims and proves that the criminal acts committed were due to temporary or permanent insanity. In legal terms, the word insanity is defined as a medical illness or defect (Bing, 1996). However, this description is not tantamount to the medical definition of insanity, which relates to having a mental disease or disorder. Accordingly, the court has to perform tests of insanity to prove whether the defendant is insane before punishment or acquittal.
This paper presents a discussion of the four major tests of insanity employed in criminal justice. The paper compares and contrasts these four tests and gives a recommendation of which test is best suited to determine insanity.
The Four Tests of Insanity
In criminal law, a mentally ill person is not necessarily legally insane and vice versa. For that reason, tests have to be carried out to determine whether the accused is insane or not so as to know how to pass judgment. Four major tests of insanity have been applied to determine insanity including the Federal Test, Irresistible Impulse Test, M’Naghten Test, and the Model Penal Code Test.
Enacted in 1984, the Federal Test states that a defendant can be excused from his crimes if, at the time of committing the offence, he was suffering from a severe mental disease which caused him to have complete cognitive incapacity (Bing, 1996). Simply put, the defendant needs to prove that his mental disease resulted in him not realizing what he was doing or the wrongfulness of his acts.
The Irresistible Impulse Test, on the other hand, states that a person can claim to be insane if, when committing the offence, he acted from uncontrollable impulse and could not choose between right and wrong acts. In essence, this test argues insanity on the lines of mental illness that affects volitional capacity (Bing, 1996).
Comparable with the Irresistible Impulse Test, The M’Naghten Test looks at insanity as a mental illness that causes cognitive disability (Bing, 1996). This test states that a person can be deemed as legally insane of at the time of committing the crime he suffered a disease of the mind, which caused the person not to know the nature of the criminal act committed.
Lastly, the Model Penal Code Test states that a person can be considered as being legally insane if, when committing the act of crime, this person did not have substantial capacity to understand that his acts were criminal or to abide by the rules of the law about committing that crime.
Out of the four insanity tests used, the best and most appropriate insanity test is the M’Naghten test. This is because, this test demands that the defendant prove to be suffering from complete cognitive disability and does not recognize incapacity as a cause for insanity. Claiming that a defendant was incapable of recognizing his crime or controlling his impulse or abide by the rules of law is not substantial enough to declare insanity. This is because; it is quite easy for a defendant to argue out that they were incapable to recognize the crime committed even if they are not legally insane. For that reason, the M’Naghten test is the only test that can really prove if a person is insane or not, thus allowing the court to give a merited ruling over the case.
References
Bing, J. L. (1996). “Protecting the Mentally Retarded from Capital Punishment: State Efforts
Since Penry and Recommendations for the Future.” New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 22.
Criminal Justice Labor Organization
Criminal Justice Labor Organization
Name of Student
Name of Institution
Criminal Justice Labor Organization
The basic reason for the existence of labor unions is to guard the interests of its members in the best way through every machinery and avenue possible. At least this is the theoretical standing. As simple as the argument may sound, however, conflict of interests are inevitable in any labor union (Allen & Sawhney, 2009). A union not only has the interests of its members at heart, but those of the employer too. When a union strives to further the interests of the employer, the employee is at risk, and from here emerges the conflict of interest.
Unions in the criminal justice system are the most powerful in the United States. However, these unions are unique, arguing from the perspective of conflict of interests. Conflict of interests in these unions has effects that affect every other person out there aside from the law enforcement officers. The members of the public employ these law enforcement officers. Consequently, any conflict of interest within the unions puts the officers at a dangerous position against the members of the public whom they owe a service duty (Allen & Sawhney, 2009). Such a conflict as this cannot be cured easily.
A good example is the duty of law enforcement officers to arrest criminals instead of defending them. Where police unions are involved, the officers may end up defending criminals instead of arresting them. This will pervert justice against the will of members of the public. A case in point is in Alabama where law enforcement officers set up some benefit for purposes of funding the defense of fellow officers caught beating up an unconscious man (Gray, 2009). This shows how far police unions can go in derailing the justice process. As brutal and insensitive as it sounds, law enforcement unions have a reason to stay. They serve a crucial role of guarding the officers from public servants who champion political favoritism as compared to merit.
References
Allen, J. M. & Sawhney, R. (2009). Administration and Management in Criminal Justice: A
Service Quality Approach. NY: Springer
Gray, J. (2009). Police unions to barbecue to help defend officers fired in videotaped beating.
Retrieved 16 February 2015 from HYPERLINK “http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/10/police_unions_to_barbecue_to_h.html” http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/10/police_unions_to_barbecue_to_h.html
Criminal Justice In Japan The Issue Of Forced Confessions
Criminal Justice In Japan: The Issue Of Forced Confessions
Pellegrini (2007), in an article titled “Forced Confessions and the Japanese Justice System,” attributes Japan’s high conviction rate of 99.9% to forced confessions. He describes how Japan’s fast economic growth rate and modernization has not been reflected in its implementation of a fair criminal justice system. By giving accounts of persons who were forced to sign confessions, the author illustrates the extent of this problem to a scale where the media has even made it known to the United Nations.
Pellegrini describes how the Japanese justice system is heavily reliant on confessions which make up 86.6 percent of the 99.9 percent conviction rate. No other country in the world has such a high confession rate like Japan. In Japan confessions are important since they are seen by both the court and the society as a major step to rehabilitation. Most prosecutors will prefer to handle cases involving a confession since they are not often required to disclose how the evidence was arrived at. Confessions, voluntary or forced, are an integral part of the Japanese criminal justice system due to a serious lack of, or determination for, crime-scene investigative skills by the police. Very rarely are witnesses sought or statements, pictures and blood samples taken when a confession can be coerced from the suspect. Forced confessions in the Japanese legal system are safeguarded by the establishment of Daiyo Kangoku which translates to substitute prison. These substitute prisons, located police boxes called Koban, are very “effective confession generators” (Pellegrini, 2007). A suspect can be detained in the substitute prisons for up to 24 days without the assistance of a lawyer. Access to a lawyer is only possible at the suspect’s expense which most people can not afford. The police can further make a formal request to the court for an extension of confinement period by an additional ten days to get what they want from the accused. Interestingly, such requests have often been granted 99 percent of the time. Pellegrini concludes by describing the steps being taken to end this injustice especially through a movie titled I Just Didn’t Do It. He states that no matter how educated those involved in the Japanese criminal justice system are, undemocratic practices by police, prosecutors, and judges will always be an impediment to Japan’s socio-cultural development.
Comparison with the United States justice system
In the United States, the Fifth Amendment offers protection to all citizens from law enforcement acts that would deprive them “of life, liberty or property without due process of the law” (Amar & Lettow, 1995, p. 857). The Fifth Amendment further protects witnesses and suspects from being forcefully requested to incriminate themselves through forced confessions or other coercive admissions of guilt. In the United States forced confessions can not work since any suspect has a choice of pleading the Fifth which gives him or her the right to refuse to answer a question because the response might be self incriminating. The legal provision for protecting suspects from self-incrimination in the United States was put in place to prevent the use of torture in extracting confessions as is the case in Japan. The U.S justice system further protects suspects from self-incrimination in the Miranda rights which offer the right to remain silent. Through the Fifth Amendment, evidence obtained illegally by law enforcement officers is not admissible in court. For example, any confession that was not preceded by a Miranda caution where it was needed can not be admitted as evidence in court. Unlike in the Japanese justice system, the use of forced confessions to make convictions would be almost impossible in the United States.
References
Amar, A. R. & Lettow, R. B. (1995). Fifth Amendment First Principles: The Self IncriminationClause. Michigan Law Review (The Michigan Law Review Association), 93(5), 857–928.
Pellegrini, C. (2007). Forced confessions and the Japanese justice system. Retrieved January 31,2011, from http://www.transpacificradio.com/2007/03/11/forced-confessions-and-the-japanese-justice-system