Original
Despite lawyers’ abuse of the insanity defense, many still argue that the insanity defense is justified. Critics like Howard Zonana, Yale University psychiatry professor and the academy's medical director, argue that "the ‘overwhelming majority’ of defendants acquitted by reason of insanity suffer from schizophrenia or some other mental illness” (Martin 1). Although this may be true, the possibility that lawyers misuse the insanity defense must be taken into consideration, especially when the numbers of these cases are increasing. Let’s consider the Jack Ruby case, in which he murdered Lee Harvey Oswald. “In Ruby’s first statement to the police, he said that he killed Oswald because he ‘couldn’t stand the thought of Jackie [Mrs. Kennedy] undergoing the torment of attending Oswald’s trial. Nor could he forget ‘how Jackie had suffered and that Caroline and John wouldn’t have a daddy anymore” (Shaffer 2). These statements, along with the fact that Ruby suffered organic brain damage and epilepsy, conclude that Ruby was actually mentally unstable, and imprisonment would only worsen his condition (2). However, if we consider a murder trial such as the “Twinkie Defense,” the lawyer of the defendant struggled to prove Dan White had any history of mental instability, using his sugary diet as an excuse to justify his horrifying actions. The proposal that Dan White lacked criminal intent and was “insane” at the time of his murders seems ridiculous. This is an example of how the insanity defense is abused in murder trials. I am by no means proposing that the insanity defense be abolished; however, I am only pointing out that it is simply abused by lawyers in U.S murder trials.
Despite lawyers’ abuse of the insanity defense, many still argue that the insanity defense is justified. Critics like Howard Zonana, Yale University psychiatry professor and the academy's medical director, argue that "the ‘overwhelming majority’ of defendants acquitted by reason of insanity suffer from schizophrenia or some other mental illness” (Martin 1). Although this may be true, the possibility that lawyers misuse the insanity defense must be taken into consideration, especially when the numbers of these cases are increasing. Let’s consider the Jack Ruby case, in which he murdered Lee Harvey Oswald. “In Ruby’s first statement to the police, he said that he killed Oswald because he ‘couldn’t stand the thought of Jackie [Mrs. Kennedy] undergoing the torment of attending Oswald’s trial. Nor could he forget ‘how Jackie had suffered and that Caroline and John wouldn’t have a daddy anymore” (Shaffer 2). These statements, along with the fact that Ruby suffered organic brain damage and epilepsy, conclude that Ruby was actually mentally unstable, and imprisonment would only worsen his condition (2). However, if we consider a murder trial such as the “Twinkie Defense,” the lawyer of the defendant struggled to prove Dan White had any history of mental instability, using his sugary diet as an excuse to justify his horrifying actions. The proposal that Dan White lacked criminal intent and was “insane” at the time of his murders seems ridiculous. This is an example of how the insanity defense is abused in murder trials. I am by no means proposing that the insanity defense be abolished; however, I am only pointing out that it is simply abused by lawyers in U.S murder trials.
Revised
Despite the abuse of the insanity defense, many still argue that the insanity defense is justified. Critics like Howard Zonana, Yale University psychiatry professor and the academy's medical director, argue that "the ‘overwhelming majority’ of defendants acquitted by reason of insanity suffer from schizophrenia or some other mental illness” (Martin 1). Although this may be true, the possibility that lawyers misuse the insanity defense must be taken into consideration, especially when the numbers of these cases are increasing. Let’s consider the Jack Ruby case, in which he murdered Lee Harvey Oswald. “In Ruby’s first statement to the police, he said that he killed Oswald because he ‘couldn’t stand the thought of Jackie [Mrs. Kennedy] undergoing the torment of attending Oswald’s trial. Nor could he forget ‘how Jackie had suffered and that Caroline and John wouldn’t have a daddy anymore” (Shaffer 2). These statements, along with the fact that Ruby suffered organic brain damage and epilepsy, conclude that Ruby was actually mentally unstable, and imprisonment would only worsen his condition (2). However, if we consider a murder trial such as the “Twinkie Defense,” defendants lawyer struggled to prove Dan White had any history of mental instability, using his sugary diet as an excuse to justify his horrifying actions. The proposal that Dan White lacked criminal intent and was “insane” at the time of his murders seems ridiculous. This is an example of how the insanity defense is abused in murder trials. I am by no means proposing that the insanity defense be abolished; however, I am only pointing out that it is simply abused by lawyers in U.S murder trials.
Despite the abuse of the insanity defense, many still argue that the insanity defense is justified. Critics like Howard Zonana, Yale University psychiatry professor and the academy's medical director, argue that "the ‘overwhelming majority’ of defendants acquitted by reason of insanity suffer from schizophrenia or some other mental illness” (Martin 1). Although this may be true, the possibility that lawyers misuse the insanity defense must be taken into consideration, especially when the numbers of these cases are increasing. Let’s consider the Jack Ruby case, in which he murdered Lee Harvey Oswald. “In Ruby’s first statement to the police, he said that he killed Oswald because he ‘couldn’t stand the thought of Jackie [Mrs. Kennedy] undergoing the torment of attending Oswald’s trial. Nor could he forget ‘how Jackie had suffered and that Caroline and John wouldn’t have a daddy anymore” (Shaffer 2). These statements, along with the fact that Ruby suffered organic brain damage and epilepsy, conclude that Ruby was actually mentally unstable, and imprisonment would only worsen his condition (2). However, if we consider a murder trial such as the “Twinkie Defense,” defendants lawyer struggled to prove Dan White had any history of mental instability, using his sugary diet as an excuse to justify his horrifying actions. The proposal that Dan White lacked criminal intent and was “insane” at the time of his murders seems ridiculous. This is an example of how the insanity defense is abused in murder trials. I am by no means proposing that the insanity defense be abolished; however, I am only pointing out that it is simply abused by lawyers in U.S murder trials.
[There weren't many errors in many of the paragraphs because most of it included facts and statistics. So, when I revised the rebuttal paragraph (seen above), I only fixed a couple gramatical errors and sentence structure errors that I caught.]
No comments:
Post a Comment