Summary Of Dennis Pozniak's Insanity Case
The legal definition of insanity stated by therapist Bryan Howes is “n. mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior.” Which emphasizes the idea that if an individual is not in control of their actions, then they are to be considered insane. In some cases, this period of “unawareness” can compose dangerous situations depending on what actions are performed in his/her unconscious state of mind. In 2016, Dennis Pozniak, an individual with a history of drug abuse and other mental illnesses such as depression and delusions was charged for the murder of two individuals. Dennis had killed his own girlfriend
…show more content…
James Holmes was a “normal” individual from San Diego, California, with no criminal record, was educationally talented, and had a history of depression. James was being trialed for 24 first degree murders and 116 counts of attempt of murder. James had decided to equip himself with multiple firearms and let loose upon innocent victims at a movie theatre in Colorado in July 20, 2012. James Holmes justifies his actions by stating “They were just "amorphous" numbers, sacrifices to his peculiar point system”, this peculiar point system of James revolved around the idea that taking other people’s lives will add value to his own. Although the jury rejected James’s insanity defense, it was decided that his life was to be spared and was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole. The insanity defense was rejected because of the extensive planning that went into the event of the …show more content…
This means that the guilty individual receives the fairest possible sentence. A comparison to another insanity defense used, was the case of the Esposita brothers who had clearly faked being insane to get out of a death sentence. The Esposita brothers set a plan to gain money through robbery and were well equipped to take lives if anyone stood in the way. Both brothers were charged for murder of police officers and citizens. During their court trial, the Esposita brothers pretended to show signs of insanity by speaking in gibberish and banging their heads against the table. The jury was not convinced due to lack of evidence showing past history of insanity and had sentenced them to death by electrocution in 1942. This is one of many cases where a criminal had attempted to get out of a deserving consequence by using the insanity defense. Although it is rarely the case, some criminals convince the judge that they truly are insane when in fact, they were simply successful in fooling the judge. In comparison to the case of Dennis Pozniak who clearly was insane, it was determined that there was no benefit to the actions performed by Dennis and it was simply a spontaneous event that was brought due to an insane state of mind. Is it fair for an individual to get out of their deserved consequence simply because they convinced the judge that they are insane? I believe that unless the
James Holmes was a “normal” individual from San Diego, California, with no criminal record, was educationally talented, and had a history of depression. James was being trialed for 24 first degree murders and 116 counts of attempt of murder. James had decided to equip himself with multiple firearms and let loose upon innocent victims at a movie theatre in Colorado in July 20, 2012. James Holmes justifies his actions by stating “They were just "amorphous" numbers, sacrifices to his peculiar point system”, this peculiar point system of James revolved around the idea that taking other people’s lives will add value to his own. Although the jury rejected James’s insanity defense, it was decided that his life was to be spared and was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole. The insanity defense was rejected because of the extensive planning that went into the event of the …show more content…
This means that the guilty individual receives the fairest possible sentence. A comparison to another insanity defense used, was the case of the Esposita brothers who had clearly faked being insane to get out of a death sentence. The Esposita brothers set a plan to gain money through robbery and were well equipped to take lives if anyone stood in the way. Both brothers were charged for murder of police officers and citizens. During their court trial, the Esposita brothers pretended to show signs of insanity by speaking in gibberish and banging their heads against the table. The jury was not convinced due to lack of evidence showing past history of insanity and had sentenced them to death by electrocution in 1942. This is one of many cases where a criminal had attempted to get out of a deserving consequence by using the insanity defense. Although it is rarely the case, some criminals convince the judge that they truly are insane when in fact, they were simply successful in fooling the judge. In comparison to the case of Dennis Pozniak who clearly was insane, it was determined that there was no benefit to the actions performed by Dennis and it was simply a spontaneous event that was brought due to an insane state of mind. Is it fair for an individual to get out of their deserved consequence simply because they convinced the judge that they are insane? I believe that unless the