Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Abolishing the Insanity Defense
. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 3 page paper is a reaction to Norvall Morris’s article in which he suggests abolishing the insanity defense. The paper argues that while Morris makes several competent arguments, he ultimately fails to carry his point. Bibliography lists 1 source.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_HVInsaDf.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
courts, and thus get away without paying for his crime. One of those advocating abolishing the insanity defense is Norval Morris; this paper is a reaction to an article in
which he makes this suggestion. Discussion Morris structures his article so that it falls into three parts: the argument for abolition of the insanity defense; an explanation of how the
law would work once the defense was abolished; and a response to criticisms of his proposal. His main argument centers on whether or not mentally ill people have a choice
as to their behavior. He write, "One is left ... with the feeling that the special defense is a genuflection to a deep-seated moral sense that the mentally ill lack
freedom of choice to guide and govern their conduct and that therefore blame should not be imputed to them for their otherwise criminal acts nor should punishment be imposed" (Morris
433). He hastens to explain that those who advocate the abolition of the insanity defense are suggesting the "wholesale punishment of the sick," but that mental illness "be given the
same exculpatory effect as other adversities that bear upon criminal guilt" (Morris 433). That is, he and other critics of the insanity defense suggest that its special nature puts it
in a different class, so to speak, from other defenses that have to do with the causes of criminal acts. The insanity defense exists because we believe that it
is "unjust and unfair to stigmatize the mentally ill as criminals and to punish them for their crimes" (Morris 435). The law exists to punish those who "choose to do
wrong," but if a person cannot exercise choice, how can he be punished? (Morris 435). This is the central argument in favor of the defense, and while it sounds compelling,
...