Crime of Insanity

Mike Schmidt

Abnormal Psychology

Crime of Insanity

11/18/16

A.

My position on the insanity defense had always been blurry and thought of it as a poor excuse to not bring a crime to justice.  After viewing the video and reading more about in the textbook I started to see why it could be a reasonable defense. According to the textbook this defense hasn’t been implemented in courts for how they should use it and apply it to different cases. It really comes down to two scenarios for if the person committing the crime was capable of understanding the morals behind the act or it becomes a legal question of the severity of the act. If the person consciously knows that their actions are bad or illegal, but still thinks its okay to commit a crime they very well could be mentally insane. If the were sane I feel that they would be able to over come the voices or other delusions that may be in their mind and realize they should not go through with a crime or even think about it in the first place. I think a process of observing and interviewing the person by a professional of mental health would be needed to differ a mentally insane person from just another criminal that commits crime knowing of their actions and consequences.

B. 

Based on the textbooks four factors that determine competency to stand trial, I believe Ralph Tortorici was not fit to stand trial. The first factor from the textbook that weighs in on this is “understand the proceedings that will take place”. Ralph knew what he had done and knew what was happening because of it. He also knew he had someone helping him at the trial and also that their was another person trying to put him in jail. This was an indicator that maybe he was fit to stand trial. Next is the second factor of  “Understanding the facts of the case and the legal options available”.  Although Ralph was aware of his acts and knows that he may face consequences, the factor that made him unfit for trial was that he didn’t know why people wouldn’t believe him and that what he is saying they should interpret as the reality of the situation. Because he clearly has a skewed sense of the legal aspect and facts of the case he should not be fit to stand trial. The third factor the book includes is “Consulting with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding”. Ralph knew he was had a lawyer and had communicated with him. Even after this Ralph decided not to attend his hearing date. Ralph also didn’t help his lawyer with the fourth factor of  “assisting the lawyer in building the defense”. With all these factors combined some could think he was fit for trial because of his basic knowledge of what he did. But I feel that because he didn’t even show up for his case is a reason to believe he is mentally insane and unable to stand trial due to the fact that he doesn’t seem to understand the consequences of not showing up to trial.