The “Son of Sam” Case
The Nature and Type of Defenses Used
The main type of defense that was used in this case is the insanity defense. The insanity defense is a common-law excusatory defense under which a defendant in a criminal case asks the court to excuse them from criminal responsibility for their conduct. According to Math, Kumar, and Moirangthem (2015), the insanity defense rides on the assumption that at the material time, the accused person was ailing from a mental illness making them incapable of differentiating right from wrong behavior or appreciating the nature of the crime. The test for establishing the insanity defense was well spelled out in the M’Naghten Case in which the right-wrong test for establishing whether or not an accused is insane.
Usually, as was the case in the “Son of Sam” trial, the defendant relying on this defense to excuse themselves from liability on the basis that they are not fit to stand trial. Further, the nature of this defense is that it is a cognitive defense whose focus is not on the defendant’s ability to control their conduct at the material time, but on their awareness of the legality or morality of their act. In the M’Naghten case, it was held that to succeed with this defense; the defendant has tp prove two main elements. To begin with, the accused must have been suffering from a mental defect of reason, condition, or disease of the mind at the material time. Secondly, it has to be established that owing to the mental defect; the accused person did not know either that their act was wrong or its quality and nature.
The Evidence Used in Demonstrating the Insanity Defense
In the present case, there was conflicting evidence of insanity between the psychiatric and doctor’s report presented to the court. While the psychiatrists who testified concluded that Berkowitz, the accused, knew of the nature of his charges and understood his crime, the doctor who testified that he was suffering from paranoid psychosis disorder that rendered him “emotionally dead.” In court, the accused testified that he was a bloodthirsty demon, belonging to his Sam Car, his neighbor, had possessed and commanded him to kill. According to Conner (2006), however, a defendant’s background including psychiatric and criminal history presents the best evidence to use in successfully proving insanity.
The Role of Excuse and Justification
In this case, excuse played the role of prolonging the case or judgment as for the psychiatrists, doctors, and even the judges themselves differed on whether or not Berkowitz was legally fit to stand trial or successfully rely on the insanity defense. Justification plays the role of enabling a defendant to argue that their action, however, reprehensible, was justified under the circumstances and is hence not criminally accountable for their crime.
Outcome of the Case
Eventually, the court agreed with the psychiatrists that the accused had the capacity to appreciate the nature of his charges and crime. The court convicted David Berkowitz of the crime of first-degree murder of Stacy Moskowitz
The Faith M. Martin Case
The Nature and Type of Defenses Used
The defense used in this case was self-defense. By its nature, self-defense is a common law criminal defense whereby an accused person tries to justify their criminal behavior by arguing that their criminal behavior or act was legally necessary and justified under the circumstance in which they found themselves. Unlike insanity which is an excusatory defense, self-defense is a justificatory defense and applies in cases involving the use of force, such as homicide, battery, or assault. There are four main elements that a defendant has to prove to rely on self-defense (Simons, 2008) successfully. To begin with, they must have been faced with an unprovoked attack on their person. Secondly, it must be proved that the defendant faced an imminent threat of death or injury. Further, the degree of force applied in self-defense by the defendant must have been objectively reasonable and not disproportionate. Lastly, there must have been an objectively reasonable apprehension of being killed or injured had they not defended themselves (Simons, 2008). By its nature, self-defense leads to the acquittal of an accused if proved.
Evidence Used in Demonstrating the Defense
According to Hitzeman (2012), during the trial of the defendant, Faith Martin, for Willie Arrington’s murder, the Public Defender called a host of witnesses who gave evidence tending to prove that the victim was violent and used to abuse the defendant who was his wife. Martin testified that on a fateful day, the victim punched and choked her after that she took a knife and, fearing for her life, stabbed Arrington. Evidence was also led proving that Arrington used to suffer from a drug problem, uncontrollable rage, and drinking.
Role of Justification in the Case
Justification played the role of relieving the defendant of her criminal responsibility by convincingly proving that she faced an imminent threat of death due to an unprovoked attack on her and that she did not use a reasonable amount of force.
Outcome of the Case
In the end, Justice Sheldon found the testimony by Martin to be both convincing and credible and acquitted her of first-degree murder charges she was facing.
References
Conner, K. (2006). Factors in a successful use of the insanity defense: Is there more to insanity than a state of mind? Internet Journal of Criminology, 1(1), 1-10
Hitzeman, H. (2012, June 26). Woman freed after self-defense verdict in 2010 Aurora murder. The Daily Herald. Retrieved from http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120625/news/706259597
Math, S.B., Kumar, C.N., & Moirangthem, S. (2015). Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 37(4), 381-387
Simons, K.W. (2008). Self-defense: Reasonable beliefs or reasonable self-control? New Criminal Law Review, 2(1), 51-90
