Defense of the Insanity Defense:
John Hinckley Jr., Jeffery Dahmer, James Holmes, and Andrea Yates: all are perpetrators of violent crimes, and all claim insanity as the reason. In recent years, it seems that the verdicts of many major violent crimes have come down to whether the defendant is accountable for their actions or if they should be held Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI). This verdict more commonly known as the Insanity Defense is often seen as a way for criminals to ‘get out’ of punishment for their crimes. For a criminal to be declared NGRI, they have to undergo extensive psychiatric evaluation to determine that, at the time of their crimes, they were not of sound mind and unable to realize the wrongfulness of their actions. If a jury decides that they are not guilty—which occurs in around 25% of cases where the insanity plea is accepted—they will receive mental care and rehabilitation but remain imprisoned for the remainder of their lives. The controversy arises from many facets of this issue. One is whether the legal system should allow this defense, as many states have banned it. Another question is whether insanity can be proven in a manner that is acceptable in a trial. Another question is whether juries are educated enough about the nature of insanity and how it is proven to make an informed decision. There is little agreement between the psychological and legal communities and the public on the correct policy regarding the insanity defense. This defense is a necessary part of the legal system in order to protect those who are unaware of their actions. One thing, however, is clear: if this defense is to continue to be a legal option, state lawmakers need to modify it. The evaluation of defendants, administr...
... middle of paper ...
... Web. 13 Apr. 2014.
Lilienfield, Scott O., and Hal Arkowitz. "The Insanity Verdict on Trial." Scientific American Global RSS. Nature America, Inc., 23 Dec. 2010. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.
Martin, John P. "The Insanity Defense: A Closer Look." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 27 Feb. 1998. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
Peszke, Michael A. "Insanity Plea: Doctors Vs. Law." The New York Times. The New York Times, 06 Aug. 1983. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
Rogers R. 1987. APA's position on the insanity defense: Empiricism versus emotionalism. Am Psychol 42(9):840-8.
Schouten, Ronald. "Almost a Psychopath." The Insanity Defense. N.p., 16 Aug. 2012. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.
Schweitzer NJ and Saks MJ. 2011. Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense. Behav Sci Law 29(4):592-607.
Yoong, Gideon. "Top 10 Most Notorious Insanity Defense Cases - Listverse." Listverse. N.p., 11 Apr. 2012. Web. 01 May 2014.
Slobogin, Christopher. "The Integrationist Alternative to the Insanity Defense: Reflections on the Exculpatory Scope of Mental Illness in the Wake of the Andrea Yates Trial." American Journal of Criminal Law (2003): Vol. 30 Issue 3, p315-341.
Are psychopaths like Alice, “mad or bad?” (page 21). The question whether psychopaths are mentally ill or just a bad seed has caused much debate. Dr. Hare explains that the problem is not only labeling them mad or bad, but who deals with them. “Does the treatment or control of the psychopath rightly fall to mental health professionals or to the correctional system?” (page 21). Not only are professionals confused on how to classify psychopaths, but the media also creates confusion. Psychopath means mental illness and the media uses the word to classify someone as, “insane or crazy”, (page 22). Dr. Hare explains that even though psychopaths, “cannot be understood in terms of traditional views of mental illness”, they, “are not disoriented or out of touch with reality, nor do they experience the delusions, hallucinations, or intense subjective distress that characterize most other mental disorders…psychopaths are rational and aware of what they are doing and why.” (page 22). Most professionals use the term psychopath and sociopath as one in the same. Since DSM-III, antisocial personality disorder has been used in place of psychopath and sociopath. Philippe Pinel was the first psychiatrist describe a psychopath and Harvey Cleckley was one of the first successful publish a book describing a psychopath to the general public . Pinel used the term, “insanity without delirium”, (page 25). Cleckley wrote The Mask of Sanity, which influenced researchers in North America. Dr. Robert Hare explained that WWII was the first time clinicians felt a need to diagnosis people with psychopathy. Due to the draft, there was a need to weed out the people could disrupt or harm the military structure. Dr. Robert Hare realized how hard it was to identify a true psychopaths from rule breakers and developed the Psychopathy Checklist. This checklist is used world wide to help clinicians identify true
This paper discusses the case of Andrea Yates, she confessed to the drowning of her five children and was charged with capital murder in 2001. The initial conviction was overturned and Yates was found not guilty due to insanity and was ordered to a mental hospital in 2006. Yates had sought help for her mental illness and was seeing a psychiatrist, who advise her not to have another child. Andrea Yates only received a minimal amount of therapeutic treatment. If the treatment was possibly longer could have help with the deterioration of her mental condition.
The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry is a book by Jon Ronson, where he investigates the idea of psychopathy and the many individuals involved. Psychopathy is defined as “a person who is mentally ill, who does not care about other people, and who is usually dangerous or violent.” Ronson visited mental health professionals and psychopaths in order to determine the right way to control the diagnosis of mental health disorders. Throughout the novel, Ronson focuses on three main themes, which are the definition of madness, unnecessary mental diagnoses and the problem with confirmation bias.
Interest and debate have greatly increased over the Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) plea since the 1970s. The legal definition of insanity as understood by Dunn, Cowan, and Downs (2006) is, “a person is thought insane if he or she is incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.” There are several investigations needed in the area of NGRIs plea, especially in the area of gender. Research on gender is needed because of its potential to influence the presentation and formation of the rule of law. Throughout many cultures the general assumption is that men are significantly more aggressive than women, whereas women often are characterized by passive and communal traits (Yourstone, 2007 ). Public opinion on insanity cases is often viewed negatively. Furthermore, the public often believe that insanity defendants go free after they are found NGRI. However, according to Dunn et al., (2006), “the NGRI sits at the low end of the ultimate outcome measure, whereas the death penalty sits at the high end.” The public in general view a mentally ill person as dangerous. The main reason for this is the media’s inaccurate perceptions of the mentally ill as violent (Breheney, 2007). Another problem is the public generally overestimates the insanity defense success rate. According to Breheney et al., (2007), “There are nine insanity pleas for every 1,000 felony cases of which 26% (about two) are successful.” However, the argument has been that insanity defenses are used as a means of escaping severe penalties in the most serious of crimes. Several questions arise from this topic in both psychology and law. It is important f...
“Not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) has often perplexed even the most stringent of legal and psychiatric professionals for centuries. Moreover, it has transcended into the pop culture, as a “loophole”for the criminal society. However, the insanity defense is only used in less than 1% of criminal cases, and used successfully in only 10-25% of those cases (Torry and Billick, 2010). In order to successfully be acquitted by reason of insanity, the legal team, paired with psychiatric professionals, must prove that the defendant is not legally responsible for the crime, despite the evidence that they executed the crime. They must also prove that the defendant, was or is currently suffering from a mental disorder, and that the defendant have/had a impaired logical control of their actions (Smith, 2011). According to Torry and Billick (2010), “A criminal act must have two components: evil intent (mens rea, literally “guilt mind”) and action (actus reus, literally “guilty act”)” (p.225), thus the defendant must prove that he/she did not have “mens rea” or “actus reus.” Equally important to note, the act itself must be voluntary and conscious. The the majority of the psychological and judicial court system have a reluctance to hold defendants who lack the capability needed to understand “right from wrong” (Torry and Billick, 2010). It has been proven that over the course of many years, the NGRI have been difficult to apply. During the early 1980’s, many states modernized their NGRI defense and even abolished the defense altogether. Instead of allowing the the “not guilty by reason of insanity” defense, many states have established a verdict of “guilty but mentally ill” (GBMI) (Smith, 2011). In order to make sure that individuals w...
Much of my skepticism over the insanity defense is how this act of crime has been shifted from a medical condition to coming under legal governance. The word "insane" is now a legal term. A nuerological illness described by doctors and psychiatrists to a jury may explain a person's reason and behavior. It however seldom excuses it. The most widely known rule in...
The issue of executing mentally ill criminals has been widely debated among the public. They debate on whether it is right or wrong to execute a person who does not possess the capacity to think correctly. The mental illness is a disease that destroys a person’s memory, emotion, and prevent one or more function of the mind running properly. The disease affects the way a person thinks, feels, behaves and relates to others.When a person is severely mentally ill, his/ her ability to appreciate reality lack so they aspire to do stuff that is meaningless. The sickness is triggered by an amalgamation of genetic, and environmental factors not a personal imperfection. On the death penalty website, Scott Panetti who killed his mother in-law and father-in-law reports that since 1983, over 60 people with mental illness or retardation have been executed in the United States (Panetti). The American Civil Liberties Union says that it is unconstitutional to execute someone who suffered from an earnest mental illness (ACLU).Some people apply the term crazy or mad to describe a person who suffers from astringent psychological disorders because a mad person look different than a mundane human being. The time has come for us to accept the fact that executing mentally ill offenders is not beneficial to society for many reasons. Although some mentally ill criminals have violated the law, we need to sustain a federal law that mentally ill criminals should not be put to death.
... or by giving them written tests. Some psychiatrists call mental diseases a myth. The insanity defense would require both a mental disease and a relationship between the illness and the criminal behavior, neither of which could be scientifically proven. Of the criminals both acquitted and convicted using the insanity defense, a good number have shown conclusive evidence of recidivism. Many dangerous persons are allowed to return to the streets and many non-dangerous persons are forced into facilities due to an insanity plea adding further confusion and injustice within both the legal and medical systems. The insanity defense is impossible to maintain on the foundation of rules such as the M'Naghten Rule, and the relationship between law and psychiatry must be reinstated on a more scientific level, based on the neurological work now going on in the brain sciences.
Yoong, Gideon. "Top 10 Most Notorious Insanity Defense Cases." Listverse. (2012): n. page. Web. 30 Mar. 2014. .
In an article titled, What is Forensic Psychology, Anyway?, John Brigham attempts to explain the beginnings of psychology and law; Forensics Psychology. Brigham explains that, “forensic psychology involves the interaction of psychology and the legal process” (Brigham 274). Brigham further highlights a historical case and the precedent established by the House of Lords through the induction of the McNaughten Rule, which translates, “To establish a defense on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring under such defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know nature and quality of the act he was doing, or he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong” (Finkel, 1988, p21; Brigham p275). Brigham explains that the concept of introducing psychology into the field of law ...
With murder charges of fifteen people, cannibalism, and necrophilia hanging over his head, Jeffery Dahmer plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Since Dahmer was a child he had shown withdraws and avoidance of society. He had a habit of collecting dead animals, and he would dissect, dissolve them in many different ways. When Dahmers plea of insanity was rejected by the court, he was then charged with fifteen counts of murder (Yoong). Many believe that when Jeffrey Dahmer 's plea was rejected that it was the end of anyone using, but that isn’t the case. It is used quite rarely, but it is still in use. In all reality, the insanity plea should always be rejected. The only way it should be allowed is if the criminal is fully innocent. “The insanity
Cleckley, H. (1976). The mask of sanity: An attempt to clarify some issues about the so-called psychopathic personality. St. Louis, MO: Mosby. Inc. (Original work published 1941).
The basis of insanity is upon M’Nagten Rules (1843) which set forward the principles of a defence when the “defendant had a defect of reason” or a “disease of the mind” and was not able to understand the nature of the act they did or did not know what they were doing was wrong. These three conditions must be proved for the defence of insanity to become available. Insanity is available for the all cases that require mens rea except for strict liability cases.
Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility all play a significant role in cases where the defendant’s mind is abnormal while committing a crime. The definition of abnormal will be reviewed in relationship to each defence. In order to identify how these three defences compare and contrast, it is first important to understand their definition and application. The appropriate defence will be used once the facts of the cases have been distinguished and they meet the legal tests. The legal test of insanity is set out in M’Naghten’s Case: “to establish a defence…of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” To be specific, the defect of reason arises when the defendant is incapable of exercising normal reasoning. The defect of reason requires instability in reasoning rather than a failure to exercise it at a time when exercise of reason is possible. In the case of R v Clarke, the defendant was clinically depressed and in a moment of absent-mindedness, stole items from a supermarket...