Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity

This was a reaction paper for my Social Science II. Done when I was a freshman.

***

Based on my research, my title above is the most common defense that lawyers will use to defend Abe and Pot.

By definition, Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) is a plea by a criminal defendant who intends to raise an insanity defense ­used in jurisdictions that require such a plea in order for an insanity defense to be presented. Or a verdict rendered by a jury in a criminal case that finds that the defendant was insane at the time of committing the crime as determined by application of the test for insanity used in the jurisdiction (http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity.html).

The exemption for punishment of a criminal act is based on the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action or intent or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused (The Revised Penal Code (Criminal Law) by Luis B. Reyes).

According to our Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815), Book One (General Provisions Regarding the Date of Enforcement and Application of the Provisions of this Code, and Regarding the Offenses, the Person Liable and the Penalties), Title One (Felonies and Circumstances which Affect Criminal Liability), Chapter Two (Justifying Circumstances and Circumstances which Exempt from Criminal Liability), Article 12 (Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability), Number 1, a person who is not criminally liable may be:

An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.

When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.

Thus, under our laws, Abe and Pot may not be liable for what they did.

In my point of view, in case one, the case of Abe, it is difficult to discern the verdict of the case because of the situation given. There is not just enough evidence to prove his insanity. Prior to the commission of the crime, there was no indication that Abe had some history of acting insane. It could be the case that Abe was just acting insane after the commission of the crime to make an excuse. Or, it could be the situation that he was mentally ill after the crime because of the horror of what he did. If this would be the case, though there was no prior provocation before the incident, Abe could be criminally liable, in other terms, guilty but mentally ill.

In these cases, the defendants are enrolled in mental institutions but not be acquitted of the crime. They can also never be released without the permit of the same court. The trial will be postponed until the defendant is now mentally healthy to have a fair trial. If they are really mentally ill, they will be released with the order of the medical rehabilitation center and be under the care of their families. Usually, this takes a couple of years longer than the original sentence of a sane criminal doing the same crime. So, as a personal understanding, why bother faking it?

In the second case, according to our law, Pot is not guilty of what he did. He did his crime with lack of intelligence of what he was doing. Article 12, Part 1 of the same Revised Penal Code, under Other Cases of Lack of Intelligence, says that, when a person commits a crime while in a dream, he is not criminally liable of this. Somnambulism, or sleepwalking, deprives you of your intelligence your freedom of will. Thus, you have no intention and do not know what you are doing. As mentioned above in the second paragraph, with these conditions, you can be exempted of your criminal acts.

Differentiating right from wrong is the main idea or the main basis of these laws. If a person lacks the ability to distinguish one from the other when he commits a crime, he could not be criminally liable. For me, both parties involved in a crime will be victims. I believe this explanation is strong enough not to hold insane persons criminally accountable. Instead, those who know that something is wrong are now responsible of what will happen. If the person who committed the act does not know what he is doing, it is the responsibility of his love ones, or anyone who knows about his illness to make sure that the person involved will not harm himself or will not be a threat to anybody else. Preventing a crime from happening is better than punishing the criminal.

"He who does not prevent a crime, encourages it."

=SENECA=-

References:

1. http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity.html
2. http://www.chanrobles.com/revisedpenalcodeofthephilippinesbook1.htm

3. The Revised Penal Code (Criminal Law) by Luis B. Reyes