Introduction
The insanity defense is an amendment to the strict rules of common law that allows an accused to be acquitted, completely or substantially, of the charges leveled against him, whether he is guilty or not. For this plea to hold water in a court of law, defendants must provide sufficient notification to the court. The court will then use health experts to examine the accused and determine their state of the psychology. The defense may also bring witnesses, who personally know the accused, to the stand to testify on his or her mental capacity.
However, the nature of the crime committed may significantly affect the admissibility of such a plea. A jury hearing the case may then reach a verdict of not guilty, guilty, or nor guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). Upon passing of a verdict of NGRI, the jury may require institutionalization of the defendant in a mental facility until such a time he is deemed not to be a threat to society. Sometimes a verdict of guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) is arrived at if indeed the court finds that the defendant is mentally ill but was not legally insane when committing the crime. The insanity defense is distinguishable from the competence to stand trial defense. The later is used when the defendant does not have the physical or mental ability to understand and follow the trial or even to assist his attorney (Moriarty, 2001).
Justification for Defense
The insanity defense is especially applicable where the defendant did not deliberately decide to break the law. This means that any acts committed were under the uncontrolled effects of mental disability, and the defendant did not commit the crime under his own free will. The defense may also plea to have special treatment of the defendant in mental facilities. This would avoid conviction of the accused in a jail. This is because the accused may pose a threat to others, whatever the environment maybe.
Tests for Insanity
The court has special guidelines as to the definition of a legally insane person. Mental instability may not necessary surmount as sufficient proof of legal insanity in a court of law. Mental disturbance of a serial killer may, for example, not be sufficient proof to acquit him of the charges leveled against him. The tests for insanity aim at determining the defendant’s ability to tell right from wrong and his ability to control his impulsive behavior (Eigen, 2003).
The right-wrong test is used to determine whether the defendant was suffering from a defect of mind or reason. If such a defect resulted in the defendant being unable to know what he was doing, then the plea of insanity can be admissible to the court. The irresistible impulse test may cause the jury to find the defendant NGRI if the defendant had a mental condition that prevented control of conduct. This test may be sufficient to quality the defendant as legally insane even if he can tell right from wrong. This is especially if the mental condition is the only cause of for commission of the crime (Borman, 2003).
However, it is important to note that the insanity defense is not valid if the insanity is induced by drug abuse. This is especially if the accused knowingly indulges in drugs while knowing the threat they pose to his health. In such a case, the plea of insanity will be null and void, and the defendant will be found guilty despite his mental condition at the time of the crime.
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof rests on the defense. This would require presentation of evidence before the court to prove the insanity of the defendant. However, prior to presentation of such evidence the court is under the assumption that the defendant is very sane. Similarly, it is assumed that he or she was sane at the time of committing the crime. The prosecution, on the other hand, aims at proving that the defendant was actually very sane to refute the insanity plea.
Cases
In the case of U.S v Andrea Yates (2002), the court found the accused guilty of murder for drowning her children. The insanity plea was not applicable since the accused had confessed that she was actually aware of the punishment. She had confessed this to the police while in custody. This was the reason why she considered legally sane. However, on appeal to the Supreme Court later (2006) she was found innocent on the grounds of insanity. In the case of U.S v Dena Schlosser (2004), the accused was found not guilty on grounds of being legally insane despite killing her baby by cutting off her arms. In U.S v Deanna LaJune Laney, the court found the accused not guilty on the grounds of insanity despite murdering her two sons. However, all these individuals were committed to mental institutions after being acquitted of all charges (Arpey, 2003).
References
Arpey, A. W. (2003). The William Freeman Murder Trial: Insanity, Politics, and Race.
Syracuse,N.Y.: Syracuse University Press.
Borman, W. C. (2003). Handbook of Ppsychology. Hoboken: John Wiley.
Moriarty, J. C. (2001). The Role of Mental Illness in Criminal Trials. New York: Routledge.
Eigen, J. P. (2003). Unconscious crime mental absence and criminal responsibility in Victorian
London. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
