When I attended a sitting of Cork District Court, I witnessed an offender pleading not guilty to threatening to kill his partner. The man was found not guilty due to a hung jury (6 believed he was innocent and 6 believed he was guilty). This case led me to discuss the difference in the length of a sentence received by an offender with psychopathic traits compared to an offender with a mental disorder and the role of the jury's opinion of the offender and how this 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 confidence and strong social skills as a way to manipulate the jury into swinging in his favor. Take the Ted Bundy trial for example, because Bundy was a law student he decided, even though he had a lawyer while in court, to represent himself before the jury and judge. His elaborate speeches, charm and good looks meant that many girls in their late teens and early twenties felt attracted to him, also helped by the fact that this was the first murder trial broadcast in television. Bundy believed he could manipulate the jury with his intelligence especially in matters of law, but to no avail as they found him guilty on all charges and ultimately sentenced him to the death penalty. This is an important example where we can begin to agree with the argument that has been made that the sentence Bundy received was the highest possible sentence in America, on death row. It also shows us that Bundy attempted to distort the jury's opinion. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Let's consider the real characteristics that a psychopath can 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; manipulativeness; and the persistent violation of social norms and expectations (Hare, 1996). Although this research was undertaken more than 20 years ago, we can still agree with the points he made. Similarly, American sociologists William and Joan McCord wrote in 1964 that a psychopath can be seen as an asocial, aggressive and highly impulsive figure who feels little or sometimes no guilt and is incapable of forming lasting bonds of affection with others human beings (McCord & McCord, 1964). In an article titled Forensic Psychology: Violence Seen by Psychopathic Murderers they believe that, in addition to the traits we have already mentioned, psychopathic murderers may be skilled at lying and creating the sense of emotion that they lack in such moments. The researchers thus found a test that allows them to demonstrate that psychopathic murderers have abnormal cognitive associations when it comes to violence. The test used was the implicit association test. With the information obtained they were able to show the cognitive responses that would support their actions and which would provide us with important insight into the criminal mind (Gray & al., 2003). Research also shows that many psychopaths have higher than average IQs. This can lead us to further agree with our thesis since this allows them to gain knowledge that they can use to their advantageduring the process. Take for example, if the victim made a statement recalling what the perpetrator had done to her, the psychopath could claim that he never made those statements and try to convince the jury to believe him instead of the victim. Another thing that could help the offender in court would be whether or not they have any previous convictions. Sometimes lesser-known convictions may not be known to jurors as they may not be relevant to the present case for which they are being prosecuted. There is also the possibility that the perpetrator may create an alibi only to use to his advantage against the prosecution. This leads us once again to use the case of Ted Bundy as an example. He simply claimed to be the man who matched the description and who also owned a car similar to the one seen at the crime scene. You can see that in a way he was trying to manipulate the jury into believing that everything could just be a coincidence and an unconfirmed fact. On the other hand, in many cases it can be seen that perpetrators who both display psychopathic traits and commit violent crimes are usually convicted and imprisoned for a number of 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 men, with 22 of them receiving life sentences in 2017 (no women were sentenced to life sentence that year) (Irish Prison Service, 2017). This might lead us to believe that males might be considered more violent than females and that there might be a greater likelihood of a male having psychopathic tendencies than a female. This is how it is mainly portrayed in the mass media, for example in films such as The Silence of the Lambs (Hannibal Lector) or in television programs such as CSI. With such a prevalence of the "psychomale" in modern television, it leads the mind to believe that only males can have psychotic traits as that is all we witness and if we see a woman kill someone we are usually made to believe it is in self defense or due to a mental illness rather than actual psychotic traits. There is no official written academic evidence yet to agree or disagree with the statement, but it is something to keep in mind when referring to the thesis in the opening paragraph since in the modern world we live in today the media plays a plays an important role in people's opinions on many topics and this could lead to a jury member having a possible bias if they become too opinionated about a topic they may have witnessed in the media. The nature of the crime committed and its violence play an important role in the jury's decision and in the possible sentence that may be given to the offender. In Ireland the mandatory sentence for murder is life imprisonment. It is said that death can be seen as the ultimate victimization. Many criminals use murder as a way to get excitement and excitement which can eliminate the boring monotony that is happening in their lives. Bizarre and irrational murders are what help us identify warning signs, including; who kills, who is killed and where they killed. The sense of curiosity also plays an important role in how the crime might be committed. In many cases the person may be insensitive to the suffering of others, this is similar to the characteristic of lack of empathy shown by a person with psychopathic traits. They try to create their own excitement by torturing and killing others. This led to the creation of two common laws that would be used in court regardingthe murder. These laws are Actus Reus which involves the unlawful killing of another person and Mens Rea which occurs when the defendant must have had the intention to kill or cause serious injury or damage 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 physical harm or injury. This leads us to consider whether law and psychology might be linked. In an article written in the book Applying Psychology to Criminal Justice the authors wrote that both law and psychology can be considered fundamentally concerned with understanding, analyzing, explaining, describing, predicting and even shaping human behavior. It is also about the fact that some lawyers may come to assume that the crimes are foreseen because the offender has free will and can decide whether or not to commit the crimes. On the other hand, however, psychologists argue that emphasis is placed on certain factors that indicate that the "decision" is constrained or even determined. This then allows lawyers to consider that in individual cases there might have been pressure which could have imposed legal defenses or mitigation, but still insist that offenders would have had the capacity to choose to act differently (Carson, Milne, & al , 2007). . With this information it now allows us to once again agree with our thesis as there is evidence that the justice system will prevail more often and the offender will receive the appropriate sentence but as written by Carson, Milne and others, if a lawyer takes a psychological position on the case and leads the jury to contemplate the state of mind the offender may have been in when he committed the crime. This then leads us to distinguish the differences between offenders who demonstrate psychopathic tendencies or traits versus offenders who may have a mental disorder or mental illness, both of which will have an effect on the jury's decision on sentence length which will be handed over to the criminal. As I said in a previous paragraph, psychopathy is considered a personality disorder rather than a mental disorder since even with the psychopathic traits they possess, they are considered healthy as they have the ability to distinguish between what is right and what is right . what is there. In today's modern world it is believed that people suffering from mental illnesses could be violent and dangerous. Now, when we consider the topic of human nature, this is where law and psychology part ways as they have different ways of looking at it. Under the law, mental illness is not recognized as a technical term and only the jury understands what it means and can decide whether to apply it to the individual against whom the case is filed. Under the Irish legal system, the level of criminal responsibility is judged on individual factors as it is the individual who is responsible for his or her own behaviour. The only way a criminal is exempt from any legal liability is only if he was not in the mental state to be fully aware that he is committing the crime. Even with this this does not mean that the offender is considered completely innocent and free, but may instead be subject to getting psychiatric help so as to prevent them from repeating the crime. This can be seen in relation to a number of cases where a crime may have been committed due to a delusion the offender may have had and because he or she could not see the sense and choose the morally right thing to do , the jury may be liable to give a lesser sentence to allow the offender toget the help he needs to prevent him from reoffending. The case of Daniel M'Naughten was one of the first cases in which the perpetrator was declared innocent by reason of insanity. M'Naughten's crime was to murder Edward Drummond in 1843 while suffering from paranoid delusions which he later claimed the Tories had forced him to do. The Chief Justice at the time told the jury that if they found him not guilty by reason of insanity, then he would be provided with appropriate care to promote his mental well-being and discourage him from reoffending. The consequences of this trial then lead to the establishment of the legal test for insanity. An article written in the Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology explains how criminals who are judged acquitted of a crime on the grounds of insanity will be placed in custody and treatment in a local psychiatric hospital. Once the offender is deemed to have recovered from this state, they are released into the prison system if they still have time to serve and those whose sentences have expired may eventually be released to the public as long as they are found to be intoxicated. be sane enough. Within this article Dr. Flint also discusses how if an offender is acquitted on grounds of insanity but is considered dangerous if released, then a habeas corpus can be drawn up to decide on his general release. Habeas corpus is a written order requiring that a person under arrest be brought before a court or judge to secure his release unless it is legally shown that he should remain in detention (NorthWestern University Pritzker School of Law, 1911) . Before 2006 the law stated that to constitute an insanity defense it had to be clear that the offender, at the time he committed the crime, was acting in this way because of an illness of mind and was not fully aware of it the crime they were committing at the time. But from 2006 onwards it was decided that these "mental disorders" experienced by a group of offenders included mental illness, mental disability, dementia and any other disease of the mind, but did not include the possible delusion and memory loss that can occur due to intoxication. Many offenders who commit crimes while mentally unstable or ill commit the actual act while delirious. A delusion is a fixed false belief that the person believes to be entirely true despite numerous factors that demonstrate it to be false. Some of the more serious mental disorders an offender might have 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 general contact with reality and experience both hallucinations and delusions. This often happens when an offender may commit a crime because he is so sick in his mind that he really has no idea what he is committing. With this vulnerability of these offenders, they are more likely to give false confessions as they may believe they have committed a crime they may have never been involved in. This is similar to the main plot of John Grisham's true crime novel The Innocent Man which has now become a Netflix documentary series. In this novel Grisham documents how a man from a small town in Oklahoma is serving time on death row after being accused of both rape and murder. While in prison he begins to believe that he never committed the murder. He was a failed sports star and suffered from a drinking problem and depression. The vulnerability caused by.