Insanity Defense Paper

Regardless of what you might see on TV the verdict of “not guilty by the reason of insanity” is an immensely rare plea for anyone. A majority of offenders with a mental illness still end up incarcerated. Even though the United States only makes up 5% of the world's population we account for 25% of the world's prisoners. Which converts to 2.2 million prisoners and about 1.2 million of those people have a mental illness (Fellner). Mental illness within our jails and prisons has become very prevalent within our correctional systems over the last 10 years. The number of men and women who have a mental illness that end up in jail or prison grows day by day. For those who do not go into the prison with a mental illness, will very likely develop some form of mental illness after being released from incarceration. The mentally ill do not belong in prison, the purpose for incarceration is retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation, and though it is originally meant for all of these purposes, it has lost its meaning. Correctional facilities are not built to provide treatment for the mentally ill, and the people who have been diagnosed with a mental illness cannot get the long-term treatment they need inside of a prison cell.

Mental Illness has been prevalent all throughout our history from Isaac Newton to Abraham Lincoln to Sylvia Plath and so on. These illnesses can be as minor as a slight bipolar disorder or as severe as schizophrenia. In recent years, mental illnesses are becoming more prevalent in our criminal justice systems than anywhere else. Mental illness is becoming an association with crime and based on the information that has been found, this paper will attempt to further define the problem of mental illness within our criminal justice system and offer alternatives or insights as to how to possibly help with this problem.

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

2. This criticism is on the moral basis and the consequences. This section suggests that the crime is of more importance, then the moral imperatives. It also addresses the way a criminal, who does plea insanity, should be trialed and punished for the crime. It is suggested, that the criminal should be convicted and the mental illness should be taken in consideration at the time of sentencing. If this method would be used by the court, it would allow the judge to determine the length of imprisonment, within a hospital prison, and the defendant would have to provide prove of improvement to the once dangerous behavior. 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.

The first criminal defense is pleading insanity which is an affirmative defense. Insanity is a “legal term rather than a medical one, and indicates a condition that renders the affected person incapable of rational thought, thereby removing criminal culpability” (Pollock, 2013). This means that a defendant is not responsible for their actions due to having mental health issues. If a defendant pleads guilty to a crime, but is found to be legally insane; they will still serve their sentence but with a lesser severe punishment. Once a defendant pleads insanity, they are often required to have a mental examination. When a defendant is in a court of law, they may claim that they were as mentally impaired with illness as to be “insane” at the time that they were committing the illegal act (Pollock, 2013). However, when pleading insanity it can also create issues by being used in a criminal proceeding.

Each year defendants claim to be mentally insane so they may receive medical treatment for their illness instead of serving jail or prison time. It is my belief that all mentally ill citizens should have the right to be medically treated. Although, not all of these people should be allowed back into society after they have reached their sanity. Some extreme cases such as the case of John Wayne Gacy who was proven insane should still never be let back onto the public streets. John Wayne Gacy murdered and raped 33 young men from the Chicago area then plead and Gacy was found insane. Thankfully Gacy’s insanity was ignored and he was sentenced to death. Some cases of insanity should be sentenced properly with treatment after being proven insane by a psychiatric team, but extreme cases should still be treated the same as any sane person.

One concern that is raised when deciding if the insanity defense should be abolished is will criminals with mental illness receive the treatment they need in a prison verse not being sentenced to a mental health facility. Indeed they will get treatment in a prison for their mental conditions as they would in a mental facility. The public sometimes falsely overestimate the punishment and rehabilitation in the American prison system. Prisons in America are held to some standards to make sure their prisoners are safe and getting the treatment they need as well as making sure they are in a safe environment. For example, in the Yates case, she was

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

The option to utilize the insanity defense in court should be supported because it is needed to acquit those individuals who had no control over their actions due to a physical ailment, to put a mentally ill patient in with the general prison population would be unconstitutional, and those who are mentally insane need special services for rehabilitation. The insanity defense should be available to those who had no control of their actions due to a physical illness. “D wounded a female neighbor friend whilst sleepwalking. They had been watching videos and she fell asleep on the sofa, he hit her with a bottle and a video recorder and grabbed her round the throat. He was sleepwalking at the time” (Harrison). This man

Courts and the jurors serving in them need to be cautious when listening to expert testimony given, regarding the mental capabilities or sanity of an individual. This is because it is impossible to go into the mind of the defendant and know for a fact that they are mentally capable, which causes any assessment to be in part guesswork. Also the definition of what the judiciary has considered mentally insane has changed through time and in different legal systems. I argue that expert testimony in cases regarding mental sanity is not uniform and varies in different instances. As a society should be trying to make the definitions and assessment of sanity the uniform in all of the states and United States federal courts for persons to be tried

Should their client be held in a federal prison or in a mental institution. There are many factors that cause the problem like there are not many insane asylums for where their client could be helped. Additionally, the mental asylums that are available likely have a long waiting list. Also, when they are put into an insane asylum there is a possibility that they will not be let out to walk the streets freely ever again. So, the pleading insanity charge does carry the burden of will they be in a position to pay the time for their crime forever in the least harsh environment, or they could be held in prison for a couple of years. Another factor that comes into account is when their insanity plead does go through they may not be housed in a mental institution soon. Research done by Northwestern University shows most of the youth and adults charged with life in a mental institution get incarcerated in a federal prison multiple times before they are moved into an insane asylum. Statistics show the people that are believed insane have been charged by the government with at least 11 different offenses, so that they are not roaming the streets being in a position to cause harm to others. Furthermore, there is also not enough funding for more mental institutions to open up, or for the patients to receive more care. The reason for that the government already spends 5.95 billion

In cases where a defendant has committed the crimes in question but is clearly mentally ill, a “guilty but mentally ill” verdict is used. The guilty but mentally ill verdict acknowledges when a defendant 's mental illness played a large role in a crime without causing it. A guilty but mentally ill defendant is sentenced in the same way as if the defendant were guilty, then the court decides whether the defendant requires treatment for their mental illness. One criticism of the guilty but mentally ill verdict is that, given the level of mental health resources in prisons and jails, it is not very likely a defendant will actually receive relevant treatment while incarcerated.

There are several problems surrounding insanity defense: the most prominent one that psychologists and experts who testify face is judging the individuals psychological state retrospectively (Costano & Costanzo, 2013). The insanity pleas and defenses rely on the mental state of an individual at the moment they were committing the crime, not prior or after the crime. Therefore psychologists who evaluate these defendants are tasked with making judgements of an individual that was not available to them at the moment of crime and sometimes for long period after the crime.

According to one source (2011, Black’s Law, Bryan A. Garner) insanity is “Any mental disorder sever enough that it prevents a person from having legal capacity and excuses the person from criminal or civil responsibility, insanity is a legal, not a medical, standard.” Another source states “In order for one person to be considered for the insanity plea, they must have a psychiatric evaluation and prove they were insane during the committing of the crime.”(1965, Psychiatric Justice, Thomas S. Szasz, M.D) If someone pleads not guilty by reason of insanity, than they undergo mental rehabilitation. The length of time in the mental rehabilitation is determined by how long it takes the individual to be mentally prepared to re-appear in court. After the individual is fit for re-trial, the individual returns to court and will than plead guilty or not guilty. In most trials, the defendant serves a punishment that is not as severe as it was