Does the insanity plea allow the infringement of the public’s right to security or is taking away the plea an infringement of yours?

This paper will focus on an assessment of the plea ‘not guilty by reason of insanity.’ The piece will seek to interrogate how the mentally ill are treated by the judicial system, whether the NGRI plea is reasonable, and the ways in which the legislative system must adapt to ensure that mental health is prioritised.

Discrimination in Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity Defense Among African American and white Defendants

Racial discrimination in the legal system and mental health care system has been well documented by previous research. Issues of race, law, and mental health meet at a cross-section when it comes to cases involving minority defendants and the insanity plea. Under the constitution of the United States it is the duty of a venrisperson is to reach a fair and unbiased verdict. However, the reality is that there are many ways that a juror can become biased by their personal attitudes. Racial prejudice can effect a jurors ability to make an impartial decision. Attitudes about those who have mental illness can effect the way in which a juror assigns responsibility to a defendant. And a persons attitude toward the insanity plea could influence their decision making. Of the very few defendants successful at using the insanity plea, they tend to be white older men with severe mental illness (Cirincione, 1995). This study aims to implicate the role that racial prejudice and attitudes have on jurors in Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) pleas between Affrican American and white defendants with diagnosed with Schizophrenia.