Not criminally responsible versus guilty, but mentally ill

In this research paper, the authors George B. Palmero and Richard D. Knudten explore the insanity plea in court and study the particular case of Jeffrey Dahmer. They researched and questioned the plea of not criminally responsible in court to study the frequency and success of court battles on serial killers in American courts. Their research found that families and victims much prefer the title guilty but mental ill than not criminally responsible. This is because the sentence acknowledges the fact that the person is guilty, whereas when declared not criminally responsible for your actions, the sentence tends to be a little less severe. In their research paper they had many questions that could not be answer such as the nature vs nurture debate on killers and serial offenders, the legitimacy of the pleas in court related to mental illness and if in the generations to come pleading not criminally responsible will be abolished. Their research paper was complete on certain levels, but too ambitious concerning many of their research questions. It was interesting to read about the differences between the their definitions of not criminally responsible versus guilty but mentally ill. I was hoping for a more complete conclusion on their part, but it was still a very interesting paper they produced in the end. To read the full research paper visit :http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/38/1/3.full.pdf+html

Written by Courtney Milonja