Explain the legal excuse of insanity and the justification defense for self-defense. What certain parameters have to be in place for each defense to be successful, and what arguments will not work for each? Do you think the current rules for insanity and self-defense reflect the common social view?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Insanity is when the defendant's state of mind negates criminal responsibility. It does not necessarily mean that everyone who suffers from a form of mental illness can be excused from legal responsibility-people who are depressed or suffer mood disorders can be found legally sane. This plea is usually left to psychiatric testimony to prove the person understood the wrongfulness of their actions or was mentally incapable of forming intent. The commonly used tests include the M'Naghten rule, the irresistible impulse test, the Durham rule, the Insanity Defense Reform Act, and the substantial capacity test.Self-defense is justified when danger of death or great harm is used to negate one's actions. Someone may use force only as is reasonably necessary to prevent personal harm and the danger to him or her must be immediate. In addition, most jurisdictions require that the defendant sought alternative means of avoiding danger before using force. An exception to retreating from danger before using force applies to attacks in a person's own home.Student answers will vary in response to whether these parameters reflect the social view. Talking about George Zimmerman and police killings of African Americans could be a good topic to bring up for self-defense.