Insanity Defense
Insanity Defense
Introduction
Insanity defense refers to a defendant found to be guilty of a crime, but ended up in the mental institution instead of heading straight to correctional facility. Insanity defense is one of the most widely used court justifications of a crime in which the defendant proves to the court that he was not in his proper state of mind while committing the crime (Callahan et al., 1991). Failing to determine what is right o wrong acted upon the conditions of uncontrolled impulses resulted to the jury holding the defendant not guilty. This discussion will explore the use insanity as court defense. The exploration of the issue will begin by stating the historical context of the defense and how its use affects the outcome of court decision. One can only assume that the reason for using such defense is the perceived flexibility of the law and the constitution’s provision that stipulates that none should be excused by the law except the severely mentally incapacitated.
Discussion
Several cases in the past including the highly sensationalized criminal cases encompasses court decisions where the defendant was acquitted due to mental illness. The fist known recognition of insanity defense came in the English court in 1581 known as the McNaghten rules stipulates that if a madman during the time of his lunacy have committed a crime, he cannot be prosecuted (Eagan, 2010). The 18th century “Wild Beast” test determines whether the accused understood the nature of crime no better than a wild beast or an infant (Gado, N.D.). Contemporary statutes have adopted the same concept of insanity defense, which is popularly being used today. There are philosophical perspectives involved on insanity defense, which demonstrates assumptions that people suffering from insanity are not morally accountable for their actions or otherwise exempted from the blame (Walton, 1975).
One of the issues rose about the use of insanity as court defense is not about whether it is the appropriate the punishment, but whether or not the person deserves it. This kind of question emerges particularly in highly sensationalized cases such as that of Lorena Bobbitt who severed her husband’s penis in 1994, but pleaded that she was temporarily insane at the time of crime (Covey, 2011). The jury bought the argument and Lorena was released from the institution after three months (Martin, 1998). Although temporary insanity is only considered as emotionally invoked mental condition that involves the apparent irresistible impulses due to a variety of reasons it still permits the factually found guilty defendant to escape both being institutionalized and incarcerated (Covey, 2011). In the case of Lorena Bobbitt, she was successful in her defense because the circumstances of the case were able to satisfy the three elements of justification cases, which are necessity, defense, and provocation.
As a constant victim of domestic and emotional abuse, the jury accepts the justification of necessity and provocation in Bobbitt’s actions. This is rather different from the case of John Hinckley Jr. who was acquitted of attempted murder case after a failed attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan (Caplan, 2011). After three decades, Hinckley remained in the mental institution although the public is furious about the acquittal decision (Caplan, 2011). There is a difference in the aforementioned cases because the latter have established an apparent loss of sanity before, during, and after the crime was committed. In the Hinckley case, he was proven to have suicidal tendencies and highly obsessed with the actress Jodie Foster, which is one of the reasons that he attempted to assassinate the president in order to gain attention from the actress (Caplan, 2011). There is an apparent existence of delusional thinking on Hinckley, which is an imminent condition leading to insanity (Callahan et al., 1991). Temporary and severe mental illness were used as grounds to escape punishment, such defense was so effective that even the least deserving criminals uses it to avoid the law.
Conclusion
The controversies that insanity defense brought to many sensational cases were so immense that even the unworthy of such escape is using the defense to justify their acts of crime. Insanity as a state of mind crosses the boundaries of the law and becoming a beat-up excuse for justifying why they committed a crime. The law as the larger society believes is supposed to be absolute on a certain level that no one should be above it. However, moral conscience plays a critical role in court decisions where the defendant’s state of mind defeats the purpose of punishment for a socially immoral conduct.
References
Callahan, L. A., Steadman, H. J., McGreev, M. A., & Robbins, P. C. (1991). The volume and characteristics of insanity defense pleas: An eight-state study. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 19(4), 331-338. Retrieved from http://www.jaapl.org/content/19/4/331.full.pdf
Caplan, L. (2011, January 17). The Insanity Defense, Post-Hinckley. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/opinion/18tue4.html?_r=0
Covey, R. D. (2011). Temporary insanity: The strange life and times of the perfect defense. Boston University Law Review, 91, 1598-1668. Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/documents/COVEY.pdf
Eagan, M. A. (2011). The effect of the Guilty but Mentally Ill verdict on the outcome of a jury trial. Retrieved from Texas State University website: https://webspace.utexas.edu/mae548/www/research/legal/paperfinal.pdf
Gado, M. (n.d.). The Insanity Defense — The Debate in Court — Crime Library on truTV.com [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/insanity/6.html
Martin, J. P. (1998, February 27). Washingtonpost.com: The Insanity Defense: A Closer Look. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/aron/qa227.htm
Walton, D. (1975). Philosophical perspectives on the insanity defense. The Human Context, 7, 546-560. Retrieved from http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/75philper.pdf
