The suspects of the incident shifted throughout the episode, until coming to the conclusion that the mental state of the mother was unhealthy after obtaining her confession. At the end of the trial of Doreen Whitlock, the judge sentences to her to a conviction was 25 years to be spent at a mental facility due to her successful acquittal. With the rise and importance of mental health, it is vital for the American public to understand the misrepresentations of the legal system in our society. In this paper, I will talk about the how this specific Law & Order episode depicts the “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” defense.
The Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity is attainable with no difficulty. One argument presented by this episode is that the NGRI plea is feasible effortlessly. It fails to show the tedious procedures in how insanity is determined, accurately. For instance, a scene is displayed in the setting of Bellevue Hospital where Doreen is being interrogated by detectives Robert Goren and Alexandra Eames. In the presence of her lawyer, Doreen is physically distraught when she is confronted about a tampered space heater that was returned to a department store, weeks before the incident. The detectives had already discovered that she was responsible for the temperament, which if the space heater had been used it would have emitted carbon monoxide, exposing anyone in a close vicinity to carbon monoxide poisoning. In efforts to defend herself, Doreen confesses “But I couldn’t do it. There was something wrong with me.” This confession not only admits to the temperament of the heater but as well as the confirmation that she had thoughts of premeditative murder and knew right from wrong. Contradicting, what the insanity defense is truly meant for and the reasoning behind it. Based on my research, this inaccurate representation of the insanity plea does not show the lengthy process and requirements that acquiring a successful acquittal from the court involves. The insanity defense is a criminal defense used to claim that the defendant cannot be held accountable for the crime because of legal insanity. Cornell University Law School defines the insanity defense as “a person accused of a crime can acknowledge that they committed the crime, but argue that they are not responsible for it because of their …show more content…
Typically, restricted to state circumstances, the M'Naghten Rule is the proper method for examining legal insanity. The test concentrates on the individual’s capability of not knowing what they were doing or that their actions were wrong. In order for the M’Naghten Rule to prove insanity FindLaw.com explains the rule as “The M'Naghten Rule (or test) focuses on whether a criminal defendant knew the nature of the crime or understood right from wrong” (“The M'Naghten Rule”). Hence, if the perpetrator was not able to distinguish their actions from right and wrong, then, under those circumstances, they cannot be held accountable for the crime. Alternately, the plea is pursued to lessen the severity of the verdict and to be followed up with psychotherapy. Dr. Mark Nolan, Senior Lecturer at ANU College of Law, says that the NGRI plea “enables defendants to avoid criminal liability and standard criminal punishment” (Nolan