Insanity Defense
Introduction
One of the central issues of nowadays in the sphere of criminal law is insanity defense or so-called mental disorder defense, which is thought to be the basis for a person to be acquitted, or, namely, not be liable for an action. It is also characterized as ‘probably the most controversial criminal law doctrine, which, when used successfully, being a rare example in American law, gives a defendant, who has clearly committed the crime, even one as heinous as murder, is deemed not guilty and may not be punished
It is noted that ‘mental illness has always played a substantial role in criminal cases as an excuse or mitigation of a criminal act or as a claim that a defendant is not competent to be tried, to waive rights, or to be executed’. The issue of the insanity defense is highly debated in the world and, in particular, in the U.S., since its application is thought to lead to discussions whether it was properly used or not, it was done in order to avoid trial or not. Currently, ‘five states, including Utah, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Kansas have not allowed the formal procedure of insanity defense’.It is caused by the widely spread thought that insanity defense in an instrument to avoid punishment for those, who can merely pay for the insanity test.
Many cases, which are thought to be the clear proof that insanity defense was a tool for the guilty to use this procedure so as to be acquitted, caused the wave of reforms. Among such cases one of the most known is assassination, committed by John W. Hinckley against President Reagan, after which the assassin, having plead for insanity defense, was found not guilty. This case particularly influenced the policy of the above-mentioned states, which have not allowed formally using the insanity defense procedure. However, the mentioned assassination led to positive legislative changes as well. The Congress passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act, which ‘shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense in trials involving insanity defense’.
Before discussing the pros and cons of the insanity defense, particularly dealing with the issue, why people think that it is used in order to merely avoid trial, we need to say that insanity defense pleas often fail: National Institute of Mental Health showed that insanity defense was used in less than one percent of all cases, moreover, only twenty-six percent of pleas were successful.
The people’s collective thinking about insanity defense as about the way to avoid punishment for the, in particular, accused is usually caused by mass media reflection to certain crime. It is well illustrated in the case People v. Gacy, 103 Ill.2d 1 (1984), in which Dr. Ney explained the influence of ‘emotionally impacting material’ on the creation of such thought. In the mentioned case an expert ‘explained that the factor to be analyzed in determining the impact of media coverage is the emotional impact created by certain types of articles’, particularly he mentioned six types of articles, which create strong emotional responses.
These were articles which ‘made reference to "homosexuality" elicited emotional responses’, since at that time there was almost no tolerance towards the homosexuals and it was clearly understood by the media. Second type was ‘pairing homosexuality with the term "mass murderer", which had a strong emotional impact because it combined the number of deaths with the "topic of death”’.
Third key aspect of influence of mass media is "human interest" stories focused on an individual's involvement in the case rather than the actual facts of the case. All the legal aspects of the case were mostly omitted: only attractive for audience elements, such as number of murders and the personality of a criminal were highlighted.
The fourth element consists in the comparative method, used by newspapers. They compared defendant to other notorious mass murderers, as these articles were labeled "guilt by association" articles. One of the most important elements in aspect of creation of collective thought about insanity defense as if it is a way to avoid trial was "quasi-legal" articles spoke of how a defendant could "beat the rap" by using the insanity defense to avoid criminal responsibility’. All the legal issues were loaded most with emotions and were aimed at forming of readers’ biased and prejudiced attitude towards the case.
And the last feature of mass media influence was their attempt to demonstrate how the case will influence the taxpayers. Case’s negative impact is usually shown through the prism of the cost of trying him and providing for his defense. Also, expert demonstrated other three factors having impact on people’s thinking. These were also statements, made by public officials, which demonstrated their support for sentencing a person, who was, in fact, likely to be found mentally ill.
Other factor is the use of headlines, which is related to the previously discussed mass media influence, for instance, ‘instead of stating "33 boys slain" in a headline, the Cook County news media would use a day-by-day "body count," such as "bodies of 3 teens found, 29 more are feared slain.". But the main cause of such interest and simultaneously negative attitude was ‘sheer volume’ of information, distributed on certain territory, which made people discuss the event daily and the topic popular among the Americans. All the above-mentioned statements were the basis for creation of four main principles, according to which it all works. First principle was called ‘primary-recency effect’, which consists in the mechanism of people’s memory, when ‘the news best remembered was that first received and most recently received’.
Second principle has been already reflected in the paper during the discussion of the mass media impact on collective thinking. It is called ‘halo effect’, meaning that people are influenced by the way how the information is spread. For instance, if we discuss the idea of insanity defense and say that this is a means how to find out whether a person is liable or not, it is democratic, it is a result of legal thought of the previous century, particularly, people will have, in general, positive attitude towards such institute of criminal procedure law.
In contrast, when we say that insanity defense mechanism is created in order to help people avoid trial and punishment as well as it was used for such purpose for several times, mentioning Reagan’s assassination case, people will not support the application of insanity defense. The expert gave the example of stigmatizing the defendant as admitted homosexual, that ‘could give the reader a negative attitude towards the defendant which could make it difficult for that reader to objectively view the remaining information contained in the article’.
Third principle was given a name ‘the law of proximity’ and means that two concepts, when placed in close proximity, will be viewed as a psychological unit’ (103 Ill.2d 42). For instance, if we talk about insanity defense and mention the defendant’s lawyer, we can conclude that under the circumstance that impact towards insanity defense has already become negative and the defendants was acquitted, the lawyer will be looked at as the one, who helps the murderers to be released. And the last principle is ‘cognitive memory theory", according to which, information which is associated with a strong emotional response is much more easily remembered than information which does not evoke a particular emotional response. The case of violent crime, committed by homosexual murderer, who wants to be pardoned by the state using a mechanism of insanity defense, is likely to be remembered by the audience. All this principle is strongly correlated with such factor as sheer volume of information, which reinforces people’s strong emotions during the whole trial. Having discussed the mechanism how the negative attitude towards the insanity defense, particularly, is created, we will analyze the advantages and disadvantages of such instrument.
Insanity Defense Tests
First well-known test for insanity defense in Anglo-Saxon legal system was created in the English case of M’Naghten, who was acquitted by virtue of insanity for killing Prime Minister’s private secretary, mistaking him for the PM; during the trial 9 medical witnesses described the defendant’s condition and countless delusions of persecution. The explanation was following: the accused was not responsible for his criminal act if laboring under such defect of reason, from disease of mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; of if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong. Even though this test has neglected the impact of defendant’s ability to control his behavior, it has been applied in many states, including the U.S..
Other test, widely applied, is modernized and upgraded so-called ‘irresistible impulse test’, which is focused on the complete causal element of the mental disease leading to certain conduct, thus destroying free will in commission of a crime, though it was criticized for the ability of the defendant to make irresistible attack feigned’. Later the so-called ‘product test’ was presented, established in the case of Durham v. the United States, according to which, accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or defect, when disease is interpreted as a condition which is considered capable of either improving or deteriorating and defect as a condition which is not considered capable of either improving or deteriorating and which may be either congenital, or the result of injury, or the residual effect of a physical or mental disease
One of the latest tests, applied in insanity defense cases, was adopted in McDonald v. the United States case, which was established in the American Law Institute, which, however, was abolished after Defense Reform Act of 1984. In accordance with it, responsibility could be executed if the defendant lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to confirm it to the law’. It supports the idea that insanity has to be present at the moment of committing of a crime in order to be acquitted. ‘Defendants have asserted successful temporary insanity defenses in cases involving infanticide, battered spouses, such as in Bobbitt case, homosexual panic killings, black rage and so on
Proponents’ of Insanity Defense Position
Defenders of the existence of such institute in criminal law system usually state that this doctrine is fundamental to our system of justice as it is created to prevent the punishment of individuals, who due to mental illness, cannot fairly be held responsible for the criminal acts. In general, the arguments supporting the insanity defense institute are mostly the moral ones, since the American legal system is based on ‘ethical foundations in the belief that human beings have the capacity for rationality, have free will, can be deterred by the threat of punishment, and ought to be punished for their behavior. However, if mental illnesses destroy these basic capacities, the individuals cannot be held responsible for the actions they have committed. It is supported by psychiatric and psychological associations, including APA, since it will preserve the moral integrity of criminal law, since those, who do not have capacity to rationally control their actions, do not posses free will.
There is also medical argument consisting in the fact that obtaining of medical treatment is more important and effective for such categories of people in aspect of treatment per se and socialization and rehabilitation, than punishment or imprisonment
Disadvantages of Insanity Defense or Opponents’ Position
It is commonly criticized the institute discussed, admitting, though, its moral roots, for its being used in many cases, concerning abuse of law. They claim that legal result of insanity defense is unpredictable, appearing often to be arbitrary and capricious, and usually does not depend even on the mental state of a defendant, but on the severity of the punishment, a person has committed and its character, the professional skills of lawyer, representing the defendant, conclusion of expert witness, particularly on whether he testifies for or against him, and on the jury verdict. Former Attorney General William Smith said: ‘There must be an end to the doctrine that allows so many persons to commit crimes of violence, to use confusing procedures to their own advantage and then have the door opened for them to return to the society they victimized’.
The antagonists usually insist on the fact that insanity defense gives too important role to inexact findings of psychiatry and psychology, which can be manipulated and used in order to avoid punishment. The testimony of such experts is usually controversial, to their mind, and could contradict with the circumstances of the case.
Arguments for reforming the Insanity Defense
Despite all the afore-mentioned thoughts, it is commonly believed that the institute of insanity defense has to be left in the criminal law system; however, it has to be also reformed. Through the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 three main suggestions have been proposed: guilty but mentally ill verdict, the clarification of diminished capacity, and the effort to limit the use of insanity defense. All of these suggestions are aimed at limitation of the usage of such defense, since first one admits one’s guilt, however, a person is not sentenced; second one, gives a person a change to be punished less severely, if they admit being guilty.
Conclusions
Thus, we can conclude that existing arguments and state of regulation make us believe that the best way to deal with the issue of insanity defense is to modernize it, but not to merely remove. First steps have already been made, but in order to completely limit the abuse of insanity defense, the concepts of how to apply this instrument have to be exact and detailed and the reliance on psychiatric testimony has to be removed.
References
Durham v. United States, 214 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1954)
Ellsworth, L.F. Thinking about the Insanity Defense: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions with Case Examples (2005)
Ewing, C.P. Insanity: Murder, Madness, and the Law (2008)
Moriarty, J.C. The Role of Mental Illness in Criminal Trials: the Insanity Defense. The American Developments (2011)
People v. Bobbitt CA4/2, E057872 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)
People v. Gacy, 468 N.E.2d 1171 (Ill. 1984)
People v. Steinberg 170 A.D.2d 50 (1991)
Rita J. Simon & Heather Ahn-Redding The Insanity Defense, The World Over (2006)
Russell D.Covey Temporary Insanity: The Strange Life and Times of the Perfect Defense (2009)
