How The Insanity Defense Is Used And Controlled Within The Legal System

The purpose of the insanity defense is to protect the defendants that are found to be mentally ill. Although insanity may be difficult to prove, it gives the opportunity for others to prove that they are not mentally competent to understand the severe degree of their actions. An accused that is not mentally stable, is not able to stand trial like every other criminal. They have to find a different approach during their trial. They cannot think rationally, and they are not in contact with reality so therefore, they have the chance to use the plea. The defense is idea to those who actually have a mental disorder or have a history of dealing with a mental disorder.

According to Psychology Today (2012), the insanity defense is defined as an individual who is being charged of a crime that can recognize that he or she committed the crime, but argues that they are not responsible for it because of their mental breakdown during the crime, by pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity.” While this defense is considered to be a legal strategy, it can also be seen as an indication of what society may believe; “it reflects society 's belief that the law should not

The insanity defense has been quite a controversial subject. It has been used by some of the most baleful criminals in history. Its controversy derives from the belief that people who plead insanity are excused from the fault of their crimes. Surprisingly however, this defense is rarely used because of how hard it is to prove legal insanity. Less than one percent of criminals choose to plead insanity and of those who choose to plead insanity the success is quite low at 25 percent.( Rolf. p. 2) This defense has been around for centuries. It can be dated back to the 14th century. Kings were willing to pardon crimes to those who were deemed “mad”. By the 18th century the “ wild beast” test was developed by some English courts. However, the

The Insanity defense is mentioned as confusing to the psychiatric and legal concept. Furthermore, it is explained that the word “insane” is more of a legal word, then a medical term, and therefor to prove a person or a criminal insane, one must find the mental condition, of a criminal, severely impaired to the point of losing one’s free will. A psychiatrist may be or may not able to determine such illness, and a jury’s decision solely based on a psychiatrists’ opinion may be grounded on unreliable evidence. Retrieved from; West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 (2008).

The insanity defense has become popularized by criminal television shows, but it is not used as portrayed. According to Dr. Zachary Torry, a psychiatrist, the defense is actually used in one percent of cases and not even one-fourth of those cases will succeed in front of a jury (Torry). Furthermore, the legal definition of insanity is very different than the societal definition. As stated by George Blau, a criminal defense lawyer, “insane” does not describe someone who is psychotic or crazy, but it instead describes someone who does not know the difference between right or wrong. They are found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) because one of the three traits of a crime is not evident. The three traits are a guilty mind (mens rea), a prohibited act, and a pre-established sentence (Blau). For the insane, there is no mens rea because someone cannot feel guilty for an act that they do not know is wrong. Therefore, those found NGRI have a different punishment than those convicted of a crime. Their sentence is often time at a mental institution where treatment is available, but the sentences can be irregular and unchecked by government associations. Therefore, the insanity defense may need to be amended, by requiring monitoring of the cases and adopting the mens rea approach or to be completely abolished because of its potential improper use and a lack of proof.

There are a few different types of insanity pleas in the court of law; however, just because someone pleads insane will try actually be found insane. About half of the states follow the "M 'Naughten" rule, based on the 1843 British case of Daniel M 'Naughten, a deranged woodcutter who attempted to assassinate the prime minister. He was acquitted, and the resulting standard is still used in 26 states in the U.S.: A defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity if "at the time of committing the act, he was laboring 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 what he was doing was wrong." (emphasis added) This test

In most cases, the Actus Reus, meaning a “guilty act” would be present, however may vary for the case for the Mens Rea element, meaning a “guilty mind”. Without either of these two elements, the defendant is not guilty, which can apply in the cases for Not Criminally Responsible offenders. When understanding the mind of an NCR offender, it is critical to grasp the Mens Rea within the crime because if a mental illness had prevented for the “guilty mind” to be present during the time of the crime, should it really be the mentally ill offender’s fault? Under Section 16 of the Criminal Code of Canada, an individual can only be considered as an NCR offender if either the mental disorder made it impossible for the offender to understand the morality of their actions and/or the offender could not understand the nature or quality of their actions (Legal Aid Ontario, n.d.). A judge can establish an NCR assessment whenever the defendant pleads guilty, however, this may vary from case to case (Legal Aid Ontario, n.d.). The NCR assessment is taken into account when proving the credibility of the mentally ill offender and whether or not their actions were intentionally towards a person when committing the crime (Mental Health Commission of Canada, 2013). Therefore, to be considered a NCR offender itself is a difficult argument to prove in court. In addition, the offences that a mentally disordered civilian has been presumed to commit must be proven to the court with the Mens Rea element present. According to a study by the Mental Health Commission of Canada (2013), most NCRMD individuals who have been accused of one of the violent offenses such as homicide, attempted murder, and sexual offences, have been diagnosed in the psychosis spectrum, being 37.8%, while 68.9% (113 individuals studied) had psychosis issues. About 21% have personality disorders, 23.6% with

The history of the insanity plea is highly extensive. The highly controversial plea has given serial killers, rapists, and criminals the opportunity to get a reduced sentence if they prove that they are not mentally stable. The insanity plea has been around longer than some people may think, dating all the way back to the Roman Empire. Some of the current tests that determine if someone is legally insane are the M’Naghten Rule and the Model Penal Code. People who would take these tests are well known killers, such as Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy.

Forensic psychology has had a lot of debates on the insanity defense. This paper serves as a review to explain why the article I’m reviewing relates to the insanity defense. The article I’m reviewing is called Psychosis and Substance Use: Implications for Conditional Release Readiness Evaluations.

The word insane is a legal term. Because research has identified many different mental illnesses of varying severities, it is now too simplistic to describe a severely mentally ill person merely as insane. The federal law states that insanity is a fair defense if " at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendants as a result of sever mental disease or defect was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the wrongfulness of his acts"(Knowles). The American

The problem with this defense is that insanity here is either examined from a legal angle or a psychoanalytical one which involves talking to people and having them take tests. There is however, no scientific proof confirming the causal relationship between mental illness and criminal behavior based on a deeper neurological working of the brain sciences. The psychiatrist finds himself/herself in a double bind where with no clear medical definition of mental illness, he/she must answer questions of legal insanity- beliefs of human rationality, and free will instead of basing it on more concrete scientific facts. Let me use a case study to elaborate my argument that law in this country continues to regard insanity as a moral and legal matter rather than ones based on scientific analysis.

The insanity defense, used when a defendant commits a crime but is mentally incapable of understanding the consequence of his actions, is a controversial plea that has been in existence for several centuries. The insanity defense uses the idea that the defendant committed the crime, but due to the lack of mental instability, was unable to understand that their actions are wrong. The insanity defense dates back to the 19th century. Daniel M’Naghten was a woodworker who thought that he was a target of a conspiracy with the pope and the British Prime Minister, Robert Peel.

In criminal cases where an insanity defense is used, the defense must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not responsible for his or her actions during a mental health breakdown. There are two forms of an insanity defense, cognitive and volitional. In order for an individual to meet the requirements for cognitive insanity it must be proven that the defendant had to be so impaired by a mental disease at the time of the act that they did not know the nature of what they were doing. If they are fully aware of their actions, one must prove that they didn’t know what they were doing was wrong. Volitional insanity, also known as irresistible impulse, states that the defendant is able to differentiate between right or wrong at the time, but suffered from a mental disease that made them unable to control themselves. Volitional insanity is common in crimes of vengeance, where very few states allow the use of this defense. The insanity defense should not be confused with incompetency. In incompetency cases, the individual is not able to understand the nature and consequences of the case, nor adequately able to help an attorney with his or her defense. The insanity defense reflects the approach that an individual who can’t acknowledge the consequences of their actions should not be punished for the crime. In most jurisdictions a professional is bought in to determine if the defendant was not able to differentiate between right or wrong at the time of the

The insanity defense is a very complex criminal defense plea. Over hundreds of years, the insanity defense has evolved. The correct term for the insanity defense in a criminal case will be “not guilty by reasons of insanity” (NGRI). Many people have used the insanity defense without success. When someone uses the NGRI defense it is argued that a mental illness took full effect leading to an individual to commit a criminal act. Many have tried to use such a defense, yet one after another they have failed. The insanity defense is one of the hardest, if not the hardest defense to use. Pleading insanity can be tricky. One cannot simply plead insanity and expect for it to work.

When the Durham case arose the insanity test was changed. Judge David Baezelon stated that, "an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect." (Mental Health Law and the US Judicial System, pg 4) This was the foundation for the new insanity test. Baezelon worked with psychologists and psychiatrists in developing the new test and in 1962 the "Durham Rule" was founded. It was said to be better than the M'Naghten rule in that it included both cognition and volitional impairment. The M'Naghten rule didn't include volitional impairment, which is an irresistible impulse while cognition impairment is not understanding the quality of the act. The federal courts eventually rejected the Durham rule because its definition was too broad. Alcoholics, compulsive gamblers and drug addicts had successfully used the defense to defeat a wide variety of crimes.