1. Read the Shawcroft case below 2. Using the guidelines of the Michigan M\'Nagh
ID: 3492759 • Letter: 1
Question
1. Read the Shawcroft case below
2. Using the guidelines of the Michigan M'Naghten Rule (below) of insanity law does Shawcroft have a defense of insanity? Why or why not? If not, would Shawcroft have a defense of insanity under any of the other insanity rules? Why or why not?
M'Naghten Rule
Under the new law the Michigan test for insanity, a codification of M'Naghten Rule, reads: " To establish the defense of insanity, it must be shown that: (1) At the time of the commission of the offense, as a result of mental disease or defect, the mind of the actor was affected to such an extent that: (a) He was unable to perceive the nature and quality of the act with which he is charged; or (b) He was unable to tell right from wrong with reference to the particular act charged. (2) The defense of insanity must be established by a preponderance of the evidence.”
SHAWCROFT CASE
Too insane to be guilty?
FACTS
While defendant and his wife were on their honeymoon in Canada, petitioner was deported as a result of his participation in a brawl. He secured a motel room in Newberry, Michigan and waited for his wife to join him. When she arrived 2 days later, he immediately thought she had been unfaithful-he sensed "it wasn't the same Karen... she'd been with someone else.”
Petitioner did not mention his suspicions to his wife; instead he took her to the motel room and beat her unconscious. He then went to a nearby store, stole a knife, and returned to stab his wife 24 times, inflicting a fatal wound. He left again, drove to a nearby farm where he had been employed and borrowed an ax. Upon returning to the motel room, he decapitated his wife with such force that the ax marks cut into the concrete floor under the carpet and splattered blood throughout the room.
Petitioner then proceeded to conceal his actions. He placed the body in a blanket, the head in a pillowcase, and put both in his wife's car. Next, he went to a service station, borrowed a bucket and sponge, and cleaned the room of blood and fingerprints. Before leaving, petitioner also spoke with the motel manager about a phone bill, and then chatted with him for a while over a beer.
When Shawcroft left the motel, he drove to a remote area 25 miles away where he hid the two parts of the body in thick brush. He then fled, driving to West Branch about 200 miles from the scene of the crime. There he picked up two hitchhikers, told them of his crime, and enlisted their aid in disposing of his wife's car in a river. The hitchhikers contacted the police and Shawcroft was apprehended shortly thereafter. He voluntarily confessed to the crime.
Shawcroft has sought the assistance of defense counsel. He has stated to his counsel that he followed a religious faith that originated in the Russian Orthodox Church that it would be improper for a man of his faith to not to kill his wife if she committed adultery. Shawcroft also has a history of mental problems. In fact he was hospitalized in his home state of Texas 15 times over an eight-year period, where he was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic.
At the trial Dr. James Piaget, a psychiatrist, testifies that Shawcroft is competent to stand trial. He also adds that in examining Shawcroft he noted tangentially, loose associations, delusions of grandeur, religiosity (including a belief in his possession of special powers), auditory hallucinations, lack of insight, and extreme emotional liability on the part of the defendant. He further testifies that the defendant's ability to assist in his defense was distorted by his paranoia. Dr. Piaget further relates that the defendant's perception of right and wrong and his capacity to appreciate the consequences of his behavior were very likely distorted at the time of the offense.
Dr. William Hare, another psychiatrist who examined Shawcroft, concluded the defendant was suffering from a paranoid state, and was in remission from former psychotic episodes. Although he testifies Shawcroft is competent to stand trial, he qualifies his testimony with a statement that the defendant's legal sanity at the time of the offense would be suspect if the defendant at that time were suffering from a psychotic episode.
Explanation / Answer
Using the guidelines of the Michigan M'Naghten Rule (below) of insanity law does Shawcroft have a defense of insanity? Why or why not? If not, would Shawcroft have a defense of insanity under any of the other insanity rules? Why or why not?
The Michigan insanity rule states that :
“To establish the defense of insanity, it must be shown that: (1) At the time of the commission of the offense, as a result of mental disease or defect, the mind of the actor was affected to such an extent that: (a) He was unable to perceive the nature and quality of the act with which he is charged; or (b) He was unable to tell right from wrong with reference to the particular act charged. (2) The defense of insanity must be established by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Both the psychologists say, that there is a doubt that showcroft may be suffering from a paranoid attack at the time of committing the act. But, I don’t think so. For me, someone who is paranoid or is having psychotic episodes should not be remembering their act. Moreover, he wouldn’t really have the sense of taking a mop, cleaning the room, waiting and talking to the manager over a bear with the body laying in the trunk. Neither would he have the sense to dispose the body by wrapping it up. This case , to me, is cold blooded murder, where the person lost his temper with the thought that his wife is cheating on him, and the influences of religion that struck him that a cheating wife shouldn’t have the ability to live. Moreover, he cold blooded, went to a shop, bought a knife. Again killed his wife, left his wife dead in the room, went to the shop, bought an axe to return back and decapitate her with huge force. This is sheer action of rage, extreme rage and cannot be justified in the name of insanity.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.