Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
The Insanity Defense
The Insanity Defense
Criminals should have the right to plead insane, at the time the crime was committed, if it is true. The insanity defense should be legal in all states because it is constitutionally justified, it would be safer for the public and it is possible for someone to be insane, or suffer from temporary insanity. Temporary insanity is defined as: a defendant was briefly insane a the time the crime was committed and therefore met the particular jurisdictions insanity standard, but is now sane with little or no likelihood of future recurrence. (Frierson, Gunter, Joshi)
The Supreme Court has left the decisions regarding the insanity plea up to each state individually. Prior to 1800, a person could be considered insane, but there were no set standards to abide by. This changed in the 1800’s, with the Criminal Lunatics Act of 1800. This act gave some specific examples, situations, and actions to be taken in response to the crime.
One case that drew a lot of attention was the John Hinckley Case. John Hinckley assassinated President Ronald Reagan in 1981. Hinckley pled ‘not guilty, by reason of insanity’. The jury found him ‘not guilty, by reason of insanity’. Many people thought it was unbelievable that the assassinator of a President of the United States would go unpunished. As a result, many movements were enacted to reform the insanity plea. The American Bar Association, among others, worked to abolish the insanity plea from 1883 to 1885. The plea was never abolished. Between 1882 and 1885, 34 states made changes to their specific versions of the insanity plea. Most people consider the insanity plea to be a loophole in the justice system. This is due to the fact that many people think it is easy to be declared insane, or temporarily insane and be acquitted for their crimes. This opinion is often magnified with the help of the media. When an insanity case is taken over by the media, obscurity and personal views are guaranteed to be expressed among facts, leaving the viewer with a twisted view on the reality of the case. A perfect example of how the public mind draws conclusions for themselves is the case of Loretta Bobbitt. In a moment of rage, she cut of her husband’s penis. She claimed to have been temporarily insane at the time the act was committed and was acquitted. Once the media caught wind of this story, many people formed a negative opinion of the insanity plea; they considered this act to be too thought out and precise to have been done by a mind suffering from a disease. Similarly, the public often has wrong ideas about what happens to a person if they are declared insane and/or acquitted. The media plays a huge role in this as well. Often, once the case is finalized, the media stops reporting on the case, leaving the public to create its own ideas on what happens after the trial. Most people, often including jury members, think that a person who was on trail and acquitted of charges, or not sentenced to jail time based on poor mental stability, or any form of insanity, is then thrown back into society. This view detracts people from the case at hand, and with this misconception, the verdict is often unfair. Another opposing idea for the insanity plea is that there are no two identical cases, often resulting in unprecedented circumstances. There is usually a lot of controversy around a case that has never been seen before. Having no examples from the past, to pull information from could lead to misunderstandings. Mistakes can be made because there is no ‘set’ way to judge or sentence a person if a case like theirs has never been presented before.
In the earliest of insanity cases, the sanity of the condemned person was set to a vote. Today, however, all people who claim to have been insane at the time of the crime are required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. This includes several tests the defendant pass in order to be declared legally insane, or unable to comprehend the results of their actions. It is nearly impossible to cheat on these tests, making the chances of being wrongly acquitted for crimes due to insanity extremely slim.
Some examples of these tests are The McNaughtan Test, The American Law Institute Test, and the Lack of Control Test. The McNaughtan Test maps mental capacity as it presently is. This test is often used in prolonged insanity cases, in other words, this test is not used for temporary insanity cases. The American Law Institute Test determines if the defendant had the ability to discern right from wrong at the time of the offense. This is used in both prolonged and temporary insanity cases. The Lack of Control test which, obviously, tests the amount of control a person has over a given situation. These three tests are accompanied by many others in determining the sanity of a defendant. Among these tests the Durham Rule also applies. This rule determines if the actions were the direct result of a disease.
The Parson’s Doctrine is also applicable to insanity cases. The Parson’s Doctrine was a result of Parson vs. Alabama. This states that the offender knew that their actions would be wrong but did not have the capacity to stop themselves from committing them. This is also known as the “Irresistible Impulse”, or “Policeman at Elbow”, indicating that the actions would have been committed even if there was a policeman present, or at their elbow.
The constitution supports the insanity plea in two ways, the eighth and the fourteenth amendments. The eighth amendment allows no one to be punished in a cruel or unusual way. If a criminal commits a crime under false pretenses due to insanity, it is cruel and unusual to not allow them to plead insane and get a lesser, or more appropriate sentence. Trying someone without the option of insanity, or mental instability, would most likely result in the defendant facing charges that do not fit the crime with respect to their mental state. Likewise, the fourteenth amendment says that no state can deprive a person of life, liberty or property. Putting someone on trial without the option of the insanity plea would deprive them of the liberties promised to them, as a citizen of the United States, in the Constitution. With the severity and importance of all the tests and the support from the constitution, it is nearly impossible to ‘fake’ insanity or use the insanity plea as a loophole in the justice system to be acquitted for the crimes a person has committed.
A common misconception of the public is that when a person is acquitted of charges based on their mental instability or lack of capacity, they are put right back into society following the trial. This is not true in the slightest. The defendant who claimed to be insane at the time the crime was committed is immediately considered for psychiatric care. The jury is often prompted to include this in their decision making. Using the insanity defense usually lessens the punishment for the crimes committed. Along the same lines, the defendant will get the psychiatric help needed, but if their sentence has not been completed after psychiatric care they are to finish the remaining time in prison.
For example, say a person commits a crime. They plead and are found ‘guilty, by reason of insanity’ and are sentenced to 15 years in prison. Following the sentencing, they are placed in a psychiatric care and are rehabilitated to their full mental capacity. If the person only spends 5 years in the psychiatric ward, they must then complete their sentence, the remaining 10 years, in prison. They are not released to the public until their sentence is completely served.
The mental capacity of one individual is never the same as another. Each insanity case is unique in the parameters set by the mind of the defendant. Although there is no clear way to be certain a person is mentally incapable or unable to determine right from wrong, the evaluations that test a person’s mental ability are thorough. The evaluations are administered by a board of professionals who are the highest in their fields of study. Any mistakes made in determining the mental capacity of an individual are a rarity.
To out it simply, to deny a person the right to plead insane would be considered unconstitutional. In contrast to the common person’s ideas, if a defendant is determined insane, they are going to serve the full amount of time sentenced to them, whether it be in psychiatric care or a prison. And lastly, the evaluations that determine the authenticity of the defendants claim are thorough and the professionals who administer these tests are the highest in their fields, leaving very little room for mistakes. The insanity plea should be legal in all states because it is constitutionally justified, it is safer for the public and it is possible for a person to be insane, or suffer from temporary insanity.
Bibliography
Applebaum, PS, Givelbar, D., Grisso, T., Jick, RZ., Silver, E., Steadman, HJ. Use Of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder to Support an Insanity Defense. 1993. The American Journal of Psychiatry. 15 Dec 2008. <http://www.ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abst ract /150/2/229>.
Biskupic, Joan. Court: Insanity Defense Not a Right. Washington Post. 29 Mar 1994. WashingtonPost.com. 13 Dec 2008. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/local/longterm/aron/scotus032994.htm>.
Finkel, N. J. NCJRS Abstract. Plenum Press. 1988. National Criminal Justice Reference Service. 15 Dec 2008. <http://jaapl.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/4/511>.
Frierson, Richard L., Gunter, Tracy D., Joshi, Kaustubh G. Shared Psychotic Disorder and Criminal Responsibility: A Review and Case Report of Folie a Trois. 4 Nov 2006. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online. 15 Dec 2008. <http://jaapl.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/4/511>.
Hart, Stephen, Ogloff, James R., Roesch, Ronald. Psychology and the Law. Springer. 1999. 15 Dec 2008. <http://books.google.com/books?id=OOmGuWlB7TwC&pg=PA7&lp g=PA5& dq=i nsanity+plea+%2Bpsychology&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html>.
Jarvis, Angela. The Insanity Defense- A Constitutional Right? 2001. 15 Dec 2008. <http://forensic-evidence.com/site/Behv_Evid/Finger_insanity.html>.
McGreevy, Margret A., Morrissey, Joseph P., Steadman, Henry J. Before and After Hinckley. Guilford Press. 1993. 15 Dec 2008. <http://books.google.com/books?=en&lr=&ie=UTF- 8&id=_eWWVIMbBAQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=insanity+plea&ots=S0i_WH7tgt&sig=hGh6 EaCbYUWCnZlm_vpr5Vo>.
Spiegel, Allen D., Suskind, Peter B. Uncontrollable Frenzy and a Unique Temporary Insanity Plea. Springer Netherlands. 29 Oct 2004. Springerlink. Journal of Community Health. 15 Dec 2008. <http://www.springerlink.com/content/q04243u3g3628054/?p=2d7 5c520ae4942abb64a913fb9471d05&pi=1>.
Criminals should have the right to plead insane, at the time the crime was committed, if it is true. The insanity defense should be legal in all states because it is constitutionally justified, it would be safer for the public and it is possible for someone to be insane, or suffer from temporary insanity. Temporary insanity is defined as: a defendant was briefly insane a the time the crime was committed and therefore met the particular jurisdictions insanity standard, but is now sane with little or no likelihood of future recurrence. (Frierson, Gunter, Joshi)
The Supreme Court has left the decisions regarding the insanity plea up to each state individually. Prior to 1800, a person could be considered insane, but there were no set standards to abide by. This changed in the 1800’s, with the Criminal Lunatics Act of 1800. This act gave some specific examples, situations, and actions to be taken in response to the crime.
One case that drew a lot of attention was the John Hinckley Case. John Hinckley assassinated President Ronald Reagan in 1981. Hinckley pled ‘not guilty, by reason of insanity’. The jury found him ‘not guilty, by reason of insanity’. Many people thought it was unbelievable that the assassinator of a President of the United States would go unpunished. As a result, many movements were enacted to reform the insanity plea. The American Bar Association, among others, worked to abolish the insanity plea from 1883 to 1885. The plea was never abolished. Between 1882 and 1885, 34 states made changes to their specific versions of the insanity plea. Most people consider the insanity plea to be a loophole in the justice system. This is due to the fact that many people think it is easy to be declared insane, or temporarily insane and be acquitted for their crimes. This opinion is often magnified with the help of the media. When an insanity case is taken over by the media, obscurity and personal views are guaranteed to be expressed among facts, leaving the viewer with a twisted view on the reality of the case. A perfect example of how the public mind draws conclusions for themselves is the case of Loretta Bobbitt. In a moment of rage, she cut of her husband’s penis. She claimed to have been temporarily insane at the time the act was committed and was acquitted. Once the media caught wind of this story, many people formed a negative opinion of the insanity plea; they considered this act to be too thought out and precise to have been done by a mind suffering from a disease. Similarly, the public often has wrong ideas about what happens to a person if they are declared insane and/or acquitted. The media plays a huge role in this as well. Often, once the case is finalized, the media stops reporting on the case, leaving the public to create its own ideas on what happens after the trial. Most people, often including jury members, think that a person who was on trail and acquitted of charges, or not sentenced to jail time based on poor mental stability, or any form of insanity, is then thrown back into society. This view detracts people from the case at hand, and with this misconception, the verdict is often unfair. Another opposing idea for the insanity plea is that there are no two identical cases, often resulting in unprecedented circumstances. There is usually a lot of controversy around a case that has never been seen before. Having no examples from the past, to pull information from could lead to misunderstandings. Mistakes can be made because there is no ‘set’ way to judge or sentence a person if a case like theirs has never been presented before.
In the earliest of insanity cases, the sanity of the condemned person was set to a vote. Today, however, all people who claim to have been insane at the time of the crime are required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. This includes several tests the defendant pass in order to be declared legally insane, or unable to comprehend the results of their actions. It is nearly impossible to cheat on these tests, making the chances of being wrongly acquitted for crimes due to insanity extremely slim.
Some examples of these tests are The McNaughtan Test, The American Law Institute Test, and the Lack of Control Test. The McNaughtan Test maps mental capacity as it presently is. This test is often used in prolonged insanity cases, in other words, this test is not used for temporary insanity cases. The American Law Institute Test determines if the defendant had the ability to discern right from wrong at the time of the offense. This is used in both prolonged and temporary insanity cases. The Lack of Control test which, obviously, tests the amount of control a person has over a given situation. These three tests are accompanied by many others in determining the sanity of a defendant. Among these tests the Durham Rule also applies. This rule determines if the actions were the direct result of a disease.
The Parson’s Doctrine is also applicable to insanity cases. The Parson’s Doctrine was a result of Parson vs. Alabama. This states that the offender knew that their actions would be wrong but did not have the capacity to stop themselves from committing them. This is also known as the “Irresistible Impulse”, or “Policeman at Elbow”, indicating that the actions would have been committed even if there was a policeman present, or at their elbow.
The constitution supports the insanity plea in two ways, the eighth and the fourteenth amendments. The eighth amendment allows no one to be punished in a cruel or unusual way. If a criminal commits a crime under false pretenses due to insanity, it is cruel and unusual to not allow them to plead insane and get a lesser, or more appropriate sentence. Trying someone without the option of insanity, or mental instability, would most likely result in the defendant facing charges that do not fit the crime with respect to their mental state. Likewise, the fourteenth amendment says that no state can deprive a person of life, liberty or property. Putting someone on trial without the option of the insanity plea would deprive them of the liberties promised to them, as a citizen of the United States, in the Constitution. With the severity and importance of all the tests and the support from the constitution, it is nearly impossible to ‘fake’ insanity or use the insanity plea as a loophole in the justice system to be acquitted for the crimes a person has committed.
A common misconception of the public is that when a person is acquitted of charges based on their mental instability or lack of capacity, they are put right back into society following the trial. This is not true in the slightest. The defendant who claimed to be insane at the time the crime was committed is immediately considered for psychiatric care. The jury is often prompted to include this in their decision making. Using the insanity defense usually lessens the punishment for the crimes committed. Along the same lines, the defendant will get the psychiatric help needed, but if their sentence has not been completed after psychiatric care they are to finish the remaining time in prison.
For example, say a person commits a crime. They plead and are found ‘guilty, by reason of insanity’ and are sentenced to 15 years in prison. Following the sentencing, they are placed in a psychiatric care and are rehabilitated to their full mental capacity. If the person only spends 5 years in the psychiatric ward, they must then complete their sentence, the remaining 10 years, in prison. They are not released to the public until their sentence is completely served.
The mental capacity of one individual is never the same as another. Each insanity case is unique in the parameters set by the mind of the defendant. Although there is no clear way to be certain a person is mentally incapable or unable to determine right from wrong, the evaluations that test a person’s mental ability are thorough. The evaluations are administered by a board of professionals who are the highest in their fields of study. Any mistakes made in determining the mental capacity of an individual are a rarity.
To out it simply, to deny a person the right to plead insane would be considered unconstitutional. In contrast to the common person’s ideas, if a defendant is determined insane, they are going to serve the full amount of time sentenced to them, whether it be in psychiatric care or a prison. And lastly, the evaluations that determine the authenticity of the defendants claim are thorough and the professionals who administer these tests are the highest in their fields, leaving very little room for mistakes. The insanity plea should be legal in all states because it is constitutionally justified, it is safer for the public and it is possible for a person to be insane, or suffer from temporary insanity.
Bibliography
Applebaum, PS, Givelbar, D., Grisso, T., Jick, RZ., Silver, E., Steadman, HJ. Use Of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder to Support an Insanity Defense. 1993. The American Journal of Psychiatry. 15 Dec 2008. <http://www.ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abst ract /150/2/229>.
Biskupic, Joan. Court: Insanity Defense Not a Right. Washington Post. 29 Mar 1994. WashingtonPost.com. 13 Dec 2008. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/local/longterm/aron/scotus032994.htm>.
Finkel, N. J. NCJRS Abstract. Plenum Press. 1988. National Criminal Justice Reference Service. 15 Dec 2008. <http://jaapl.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/4/511>.
Frierson, Richard L., Gunter, Tracy D., Joshi, Kaustubh G. Shared Psychotic Disorder and Criminal Responsibility: A Review and Case Report of Folie a Trois. 4 Nov 2006. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online. 15 Dec 2008. <http://jaapl.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/4/511>.
Hart, Stephen, Ogloff, James R., Roesch, Ronald. Psychology and the Law. Springer. 1999. 15 Dec 2008. <http://books.google.com/books?id=OOmGuWlB7TwC&pg=PA7&lp g=PA5& dq=i nsanity+plea+%2Bpsychology&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html>.
Jarvis, Angela. The Insanity Defense- A Constitutional Right? 2001. 15 Dec 2008. <http://forensic-evidence.com/site/Behv_Evid/Finger_insanity.html>.
McGreevy, Margret A., Morrissey, Joseph P., Steadman, Henry J. Before and After Hinckley. Guilford Press. 1993. 15 Dec 2008. <http://books.google.com/books?=en&lr=&ie=UTF- 8&id=_eWWVIMbBAQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=insanity+plea&ots=S0i_WH7tgt&sig=hGh6 EaCbYUWCnZlm_vpr5Vo>.
Spiegel, Allen D., Suskind, Peter B. Uncontrollable Frenzy and a Unique Temporary Insanity Plea. Springer Netherlands. 29 Oct 2004. Springerlink. Journal of Community Health. 15 Dec 2008. <http://www.springerlink.com/content/q04243u3g3628054/?p=2d7 5c520ae4942abb64a913fb9471d05&pi=1>.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)