Insanity Defense In Court Cases

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.

In 1981 Steven Steinberg was accused of murdering his wife Elena Steinberg by stabbing her twenty-six times in Scottsdale, Arizona (Guy, 2015). At the time of the murder, Steinberg was the one who called law enforcement to report an attempted break-in at his home, even though no signs of force entry were found at the scene. During that time, the case drew a lot of publicity in the state of Arizona; not only because it was a horrifying crime, but because it was a case that involved a murder while sleepwalking. When the police linked him to the murder of his wife, Steinberg did not deny killing his wife but argued that he was not responsible for her murder because he claimed that he did not remember what happened and that he was sleepwalking at the time he committed the crime. Despite inventing the story about an attempted break-in at his home, the jury found him not guilty on the basis of being temporarily insane at the time of the murder, and walked away as a free man (Guy, 2015).

Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity (NGRI) has been used and adapted throughout various court cases in history. Many specific rulings have played important roles in many high profile cases including those of Jeffrey Dahmer, John Hinckley and John DuPont. The following paper outlines various insanity rulings and specific cases they have been used in.

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

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

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.

The insanity defense was created to help protect people from the law, specifically those who due to serious mental illness could not be held accountable for their actions, regardless of how horrific they were. (Insanity, Religion, Terrorism 238) There should be no prejudice based on the mental deficiencies, incompetency, and mental illness of a person. Rather, the law should be malleable to be inclusive of everyone. The Constitution of United States represents the national framework of the government. The abolition of the insanity defense violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the Due Process Clause. Due Process Clause explicitly states no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”, due process meaning fair procedures. Within the Constitution also lies the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. To put a mentally ill or incompetent person on stand is a cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore although the public does not have a full comprehension of how the insanity defense works, in order to abide by the United States Constitution insanity defense MUST be available in a criminal matter.

Not guilty by reason of insanity is defined as “a verdict rendered by a jury in a criminal case that finds that the defendant was insane at the time of committing the crime as determined by application of the rest for insanity used in the jurisdiction compare guilty but mentally ill...” (FindLaw Legal Dictionary). This means that someone who has committed a crime cannot be tried as guilty for the crime at hand due to the determination that the defendant is “insane”; “a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction...” (Google). A person who is determined “not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) is sent to a psychiatric hospital for the amount of time given by a judge. The criminally insane person is given psychiatric care, whether it be prescription pills, milieu therapy or group therapy, until he or she is believed to be suitable to enter back into society. Whether the person is safe to be back in society or not is determined by a psychiatrist or doctor that has jurisdiction over the patient. The question at hand is: When is a criminally insane person able to be apart of society and apart of the real world after they are determined not guilt by reason of insanity? Criminally insane persons are a threat to society, which is why they are hospitalized. The criminally insane must reach a certain point or there must be a reason why they are finally determined able to be conditionally released. The first source presented is from “Evaluating

The ideological concept of an insanity defense, formerly termed “complete madness,” was originally incorporated into the English common-law jurisprudence system in the late thirteenth century of the United Kingdom as an affirmative defense for defendants under the yoke of criminal charges involving a heinous action which could involve the option of termination of a defendant’s life if adjudge guilty of such act (Hill). Through such incorporation of a legal defense, the institution of a new societal grouping known commonly as the “criminally insane” became expounded, as well as, the legal opportunity allowing for self-declaration of being “innocent by reason of mental illness or defect”(or, the insanity defense). Those criminally insane are a subset of the prison population who have been deemed to have committed their crimes under the influence of a mental disease/disorder, or who were not in a condition of intellect during the time of the crime to comprehend the illegality or immorality of their offense (Frontline). Only if the defendant has plead insanity before the court can they be considered a truly criminally insane inmate. There are manifold condemnations sustained by the judicial system ranging from guilty but insane to not guilty by reason of insanity, as well as the legal states of incompetency and diminished capacity. This distinction has become a substance of federal law, but as soon as a defendant is convicted, the treatment of the convicted individual is left

Former U.S president Ronald Reagan was shot by a man named John Hinckley in the year 1981. The president along with many of his entourage survived the shooting despite the heavy infliction of internal and external injuries. The Hinckley case is a classic example of the 'not guilty by reason of insanity' case (NGRI). The criminal justice system under which all men and women are tried holds a concept called mens rea, a Latin phrase that means "state of mind". According to this concept, Hinckley committed his crime oblivious of the wrongfulness of his action. A mentally challenged person, including one with mental retardation, who cannot distinguish between right and wrong is protected and exempted by the court

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.

The insanity defense is perhaps the most difficult defense for members of the lay public to comprehend. On one hand, when a serial killer commits a string of horrific murders, he or she seems to fit any conceivable definition of being certifiably insane, but not all serial killers are found 'not guilty' by virtue of their insanity. On the other hand, many members of the public think the insanity defense itself is absurd and merely an excuse used by cunning defense attorneys to get their clients reduced jail time, or so the clients spend their confinement in a presumably nicer mental hospital than a prison.

In 1972, the American Law Institute (a panel of legal experts) developed a new rule for insanity as part of the Model Penal Code. This rule says that a defendant is not responsible

The defendant “smiled gaily, to find the dead so far done”, the defendant was pleased to find that the old man was almost dead (pg 3). The defendant really wanted to rid himself of the vulture eye, not the old man. The defendant thought it was the right thing to get rid of the vulture eye, because the eye bother him. The defendant even said he did the deed happily, this is the biggest proof that the defendant is insane. No one murders someone happily unless you are truly insane, like the defendant.