Insanity Defense
Insanity Defense
Various legal systems provide different types of legal defenses that could be used by the defendants in their criminal cases. Nevertheless, application of these defenses depends on the circumstances and the nature of cases being faced. The insanity defense is one the oldest legal defenses. According to the insanity defense, the accused can avoid prosecution for the crimes committed is it can be proved that at the time when the crime was committed the defendant was not insane hence did not appreciate the quality or nature or wrongfulness of the acts (Fersch, 2005). It is imperative to note that the insanity defense occur in two forms. First, is cognitive insanity, which is based on the argument that the defendant was impaired by a mental condition in the event of the act in question. Second is the volitional insanity, which is based on the argument that having suffered a mental disorder, the defendant was not in a position to control his/her actions, despite being in a position of distinguishing what is right and wrong (Simon, & Ahn-Redding, 2008). Due to the manner in which it has been applied in the past, the insanity defense has emerged as one of the controversial issues in law. Based on the issues that have been raised in this controversy, the insanity defense should be dropped as a defense to criminal responsibility.
Moreover, the insanity defense confuses psychiatric and legal conceptions, which in turn leads to damage of the integrity of the law. It is argued that insane is a legal terminology and not medical. Therefore, it is simpleminded to describe an individual with a serious mental disorder as insane; and most people suffering from this condition could be judged sane on application of modern legal insanity tests (Ritwack, 2003). Under the legal insanity tests, an individual is said to be insane if it is proved that the individual is mentally impaired to an extent of losing his/her “free will”. Unfortunately, it is not possible to prove the “free will” state medically, making it difficult for psychiatrists to determine the effect of impairment on the capacity of the individual on voluntary choice.
In conclusion, as a result of the controversy facing the insanity defense, major changes on the same and various alternative defenses have been developed over the years. This has seen various countries either abolish or amend the insanity defense over time. For instance, the burden of proof should be placed upon the defendant and not the prosecution, something that is now being embraced in most countries where insanity defense is still applicable (Simon, & Ahn-Redding, 2008). Besides, the evidence provided should be clear and convincing, and not preponderance in nature. Through these measures, the objective of the legal system in the society would not be undermined.
References
Fersch, E. A. (2005). Thinking about the insanity defense: Answers to frequently asked questions with case examples. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.
Goldstein, J and Katz, J. (1963). Abolish the “Insanity Defense”-Why not? The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 72, No. 5: 1962-1963.
Simon, R. J., & Ahn-Redding, H. (2008). The insanity defense, the world over. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Ritwack, R.T. (2003). The competency of criminal defendants to refuse, for delusional reasons, a viable insanity defense recommended by counsel. Behavioral Sciences and the Law. Vol. 21, No. 2, 135-156.
