When I attended a Cork District Court hearing, I saw an offender plead not guilty to threatening to kill his partner. The man was found not guilty due to a hung jury (6 thought he was innocent and 6 thought he was guilty). This case led me to discuss the difference between the length of sentence given to an offender with psychopathic traits and that of a mentally disordered offender, as well as the role of the jury's opinion of the offender and how it affects the length of the sentence. When I witnessed this case, it first made me think about how an offender with psychopathic traits can use his self-confidence and strong social skills to manipulate the jury into tilting in his favor. Take for example the Ted Bundy trial. Since Bundy was a law student, he decided, even though he had an attorney in court, to represent himself before the jury and judge. His elaborate speeches, charm and good looks attracted many girls in their late teens and early twenties, this was also helped by the fact that it was the first ever murder trial broadcast on television. Bundy thought he could manipulate the jury with his intelligence, especially in matters of law, but to no avail, as they found him guilty of all charges and ultimately sentenced him to the death penalty. This is a major example in which we can begin to agree with the thesis that has been made that the sentence given to Bundy was the highest sentence possible in America, that of death row. This also proves to us that Bundy did indeed attempt to distort the jury's opinion. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay Let's consider the actual traits that a psychopath may have. In an article written by Robert D. Hare, he described psychopathy as a "socially devastating disorder defined by a constellation of affective, interpersonal, and behavioral characteristics." Some of these characteristics included by Hare were irresponsibility; lack of empathy, guilt or remorse; egocentrism; impulsiveness; pathological lying; handling; and persistent violation of social norms and expectations (Hare, 1996). Although this research was undertaken over 20 years ago, we can still agree with its arguments. Similarly, American sociologists William and Joan McCord wrote in 1964 that a psychopath could be considered an asocial, aggressive, and highly impulsive figure who feels little or sometimes no guilt and is incapable of forming affectionate bonds. lasting relationships with other human beings (McCord). and McCord, 1964). In an article titled Forensic Psychology: Violence Viewed by Psychopathic Murders, they believe that in addition to the traits we have already mentioned, psychopathic murderers may be able to lie and create the feeling of emotion that they lack at such a time . Researchers have thus found a test that allows them to show that psychopathic murderers have abnormal cognitive associations when it comes to violence. The test they used was the Implicit Association Test. With the information obtained, they were able to show the cognitive responses that would underlie their actions, which would provide us with important insight into the criminal mind (Gray et al., 2003). Research also shows that many psychopaths have above-average IQs. This can lead us to agree more with our thesis because it allows themto gain knowledge that they could use in their favor during their trial. Take for example, if their victim made a statement recalling what the abuser did to them, the psychopath might claim they never made those statements and try to convince the jury to believe them rather than the victim. Another element that can help the perpetrator in court would be to know whether or not he has been previously convicted. Sometimes lesser known convictions may not be known to jurors because they may not be related to the present case they are being prosecuted for. It is also possible that the offender will create an alibi simply to use it to their own advantage against the prosecution. This leads us once again to take the case of Ted Bundy as an example. He simply claimed that he was the man matching the description and that he also owned a car similar to the one seen at the crime scene. We can see that in some way he was trying to manipulate the jury into believing that this could all be a simple coincidence and not a confirmed fact. On the other hand, it is seen in many cases that perpetrators who both exhibit psychopathic traits and commit violent crimes are usually convicted and incarcerated for several years. In data provided by the Irish Prison Service, we can see that the gender most likely to receive a life sentence for a violent crime is male, with 22 of them having been sentenced to life imprisonment. life in prison in 2017 (no women received a life sentence that year) (Irish Prison Service, 2017). This could possibly lead us to believe that men might be considered more violent than women and that there might be a greater chance of a man having psychopathic tendencies than a woman. This is how it is mainly represented in mass media, for example in films like The Silence of the Lambs (Hannibal Lector) or in television shows like CSI. With such a prevalence of the "psychotic male" in modern television, it tricks the mind into believing that only men can possibly have psychotic traits because that's all we witness and if we see a woman murder someone 'a, it usually feels like it is. either in self-defense or due to mental illness rather than true psychotic traits. There is no official written academic evidence yet to agree or disagree with this statement, but it is something to keep in mind when referring to the thesis in the first paragraph, because in In the modern world we live in today, the media plays a major role in people's opinions on many topics, which could lead to a jury member being biased if they become too opinionated on a topic that he could have witnessed it in the media. The nature of the crime committed and its violence play a major role in the jury's decision and the possible sentence that may be imposed on the offender. In Ireland, the mandatory sentence for murder is life imprisonment. It is said that death can be considered the ultimate victimization. Many criminals use murder as a way to generate enthusiasm and excitement that allows them to get rid of the boring routine that occurs in their lives. Bizarre and irrational murders help us identify danger signals, including: who is murdering, who is being murdered, and where they murdered. The feeling of curiosity also plays a major role in how the crime might be committed. In many cases, the person may be insensitive to sufferingfrom others, which is similar to the lack of empathy shown by a person with psychopathic traits. They seek to create their own enthusiasm by torturing and murdering others. This led to the creation of two common laws that would be used in court in matters of murder. These laws are Actus Reus, which involves the unlawful killing of another person, and Mens Rea, which is where the accused must have intended to kill or cause serious injury or harm. to another person. These two laws can be slightly modified in courts around the world. For example, in England the term serious physical violence is used to describe serious bodily harm. This leads us to wonder if law and psychology can be linked. In an article written in the book Applying Psychology to Criminal Justice, the authors wrote that law and psychology can be seen as fundamentally concerned with understanding, analyzing, explaining, describing, predicting and also training of human behavior. It also addresses the fact that some lawyers may come to assume that crimes are foretold because the offender has free will and can decide whether or not they commit the crimes. But on the other hand, psychologists argue that the focus is on certain factors that indicate that the "decision" is constrained, even determined. This then allows lawyers to consider that there might have been pressures in the individual cases which might have imposed legal defenses or mitigation measures, but they nevertheless insist that the offenders would have had the opportunity to choose to act differently (Carson, Milne et al, 2007). . With this information it now allows us to agree with our thesis again as it is proven that the justice system will prevail more often and the perpetrator will receive the punishment that is appropriate but as written by Carson, Milne et al, if an attorney takes a psychological stance in the case, it causes the jury to think about the state of mind the offender might have been in when committing the crime. This then leads us to distinguish the differences between offenders who are found to have psychopathic tendencies or traits and offenders who may suffer from a mental disorder or mental illness, both of which have an effect on the decision of the jury as to the length of the sentence which will be given to the offender. As I said in a previous paragraph, psychopathy is considered a personality disorder rather than a mental disorder because even with the psychopathic traits she possesses, she is considered sane because she has the ability to differentiate between what is right and what is right. what is wrong. In the modern world, it is now believed that people with mental illness can be violent and dangerous. Now when we consider the topic of human nature, this is where law and psychology divide because they have different ways of viewing it. For the law, mental illness is not recognized as a technical term, but the jury understands what it means and can decide whether to apply it to the individual against whom the case is brought. In the Irish legal system, the level of criminal liability is judged on the level of individual factors since it is the individual who is responsible for their behavior. The only way an offender can be absolved of legal liability is only if he was not in the necessary mental state to be fully aware that he is committing the crime. Even so, this does not mean that the aggressor is considered completely innocent and free, but that hemay on the contrary be subject to psychiatric help in order to prevent him from reoffending. This can be seen in a number of cases where a crime may have been committed from an illusion that the offender might have had and because he could not see sense and chose the morally right thing to do, the jury could then be submitted to a decision. a lesser sentence to allow the offender to get the help he needs to prevent him from reoffending. The case of Daniel M'Naughten was one of the first cases where the attacker was found innocent by reason of insanity. M'Naughten's crime was murdering Edward Drummond in 1843 while suffering from paranoid delusions, which he later claimed the Tories had forced him to do. The chief justice then told the jury that if he found him not guilty by reason of insanity, then he would receive appropriate care to improve his mental well-being and discourage him from reoffending. The aftermath of this trial subsequently led to the establishment of the legal standard of insanity. An article published in the Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology explains how offenders who have been acquitted of a crime by reason of insanity will be placed under the custody and care of a local psychiatric hospital . Once the offender is considered to have recovered from this condition, they are then released into the prison system if they still have time left to serve and those whose sentence has expired may eventually be released to the public provided that 'they are found guilty.be of sufficient sane mind. In this article, Dr. Flint also explains how, if an offender is acquitted by reason of insanity but is considered dangerous if released, a habeas corpus can be issued to decide their overall release. Habeas corpus is a written order requiring that a person under arrest be brought before a court or judge in order to secure their release, unless it is legally proven that they should remain in custody ( NorthWestern University Pritzker School of Law, 1911). Prior to 2006, the law stated that to create an insanity defense, it was clearly necessary that the offender, at the time of committing the crime, was acting in that manner due to mental illness and was not fully aware of it. crime they were committing at the time. But from 2006 it was decided that these "mental disorders" suffered by a cohort of offenders included mental illness, mental disability, dementia and any other mental illness, but this does not include possible delusion and memory loss that can occur due to intoxication. Many offenders who commit an offense while mentally unstable or ill commit the act while deluded. An illusion is a fixed false belief that the person believes to be entirely true despite numerous factors that prove it to be false. Some of the most serious mental disorders an offender could suffer from include schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder. These impact a person's cognitive functions for prolonged periods of time and can cause the person to lose all contact with reality and experience both hallucinations and delusions. This is often when a perpetrator may commit a crime because they are so sick in their mind that they simply have no idea what they are committing. Given this vulnerability, these offenders are more likely to make false confessions because they may believe they have committed a crime in which they may never have been involved. This is similar to the main story of John Grisham's true crime novel The Innocent.