The insanity defense has been used for decades to justify the crimes of those individuals found to be not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). The use of the insanity defense is one that is surrounded in controversy and continues to be a problem for medical and law professionals across the nation. One major problem with the insanity defense is that insanity is a legal, not a medical definition. So how can one apply medical theory to a legal matter? Other problems associated with the insanity defense include how to actually determine mental illness, justifiable placement of those judged mentally ill, and its overall usefulness (Chiacchia 2001).
The general public also has issues with the use of the insanity defense. They feel that NGRIs result in a shorter or non-existent prison/institutionalization, that the mentally ill should not be treated like normal citizens once released, and that the insanity defense is used to escape justice (Brownfeld 1994:10).
Edwin McMasters Stanton
Vincent Gigante
English: Commemorative plate of mentally ill victi...Also at issue is the belief that the state of psychological knowledge encourages expensive "dueling experts" contests that are difficult for juries to understand (Chiacchia 2001). The insanity defense may also unfairly exclude some defendants who may legitimately qualify as being mentally ill due to the variety of definitions inexistence involving insanity and mental illness (Paquette 2002:77).
All of these reasons suggest that the best alternative, when it comes to the insanity defense, is abolishment. This doesn't mean that it should be eliminated altogether, but that improvements need to be made, or a new type of insanity defense needs to be created to eliminate the deficits of the current insanity defense (Linhorst & Dirks-Linhorst 1999:71). Without some sort of change the insanity defense will not be supported as a legitimate option for those deemed not guilty by reason of insanity.
The insanity defense allows a mentally ill defendant to avoid being imprisoned for a crime on the assumption that he or she was not capable of distinguishing right from wrong (Pelayo 1999:729). This suggests that a mentally ill defendant cannot be deterred by the threat of punishment and that treatment for the defendant is more likely to protect society then a jail term with out treatment (Chiacchia 2001). If this were the case then there would be an absence of mentally ill in today's prison system. Clearly this definition is flawed because some of these individuals are not receiving the treatment that they need in order to return to normal society. This may be due to the problem of determining mental illness in the first place (Paquette 2002:77). The insanity defense does not keep the guilty mentally ill locked away and the insanity acquitted are usually afforded the same constitutional rights and equal protection rights of civilly committed individuals. This makes it difficult to retain mentally defendants if they are deemed recovered. The advances that have been made in psychiatric treatments also make it difficult to detain defendants (Brownfeld 1994:10). This perpetuates the idea that the insanity defense is just a get out of jail free card. The other problem with this idea of rehabilitation is that it is not a cure. Unfortunately, there are no cures available for the mentally ill as of yet, only control.
The insanity defense relies on the belief that mental illnesses are objective, scientific, medical conditions (Blau, McGinley & Pasewark 1993: 435). Insanity is defined within the context of an adversarial system wherein psychiatrists and lawyers battle one another over the meaning of such terms as "right and wrong" and "ability to control ones behavior"(Paquette 2002: 77). This makes it difficult to plead, seldom used, and almost never successful. These may seem like positives when dealing with insanity defense but unfortunately lead to more problems. When cases are successful when pleading insanity the cases are manipulated or abused in such a way as to be attention getting by the media (McCutcheon & McCutcheon 1994: 766). This just perpetuates the idea that defendants are getting away with there crimes.
Only a jury can decide the issue of insanity in a court of law. These individuals have no psychological training, rarely come into contact with the mentally ill, and have minimal understanding of the issues involved. They are able to make legal, long-lasting judgments that are frequently based on shifting criteria (Chiacchia 2001). This is because they may be ignoring the local legal definitions of insanity and may instead rely on their preconceived notions about mental illnesses or base their decisions on what the media has portrayed (McCutcheon & McCutcheon 1994: 766). Personal feelings about the legitimacy of the insanity defense are a major factor to consider when using the insanity defense and may be detrimental to the outcome of the defendant's case. Juror's are unaware of the results of finding a defendant NGRI, and therefore wrongly assume that it results in the release of the defendant immediately (Chiacchia 2001, Paquette 2002:77).
Another reason that the insanity defense is a bas idea is that it sometimes unfairly excludes many defendants resulting in the incarceration of many mentally ill. This is confirmed by the high rates of psychiatric illnesses in the prison populations. This is because many of these people just do not get the opportunity to plead NGRI and psychotic defendants fight to prevent their attorneys from mounting an insanity defense on their behalf (Chiacchia 2001).
The controversy surrounding the insanity defense are enough to suggest that it is time for a new alternative. After the incident involving Hinkley the public was outraged and the government moved to make reforms. These reforms are sorely needed to justify even having an insanity defense. Its definitions are outdated and defy usefulness by incurring the wrath of the public and medical and criminal justice professionals. Insanity defenses vary widely form state to state and even differ at the federal level, and who is even allowed to testify as to the insanity of a defendant is very inconsistent, that the quality of those experts witnesses may be inconsistent (Brownfeld 1994:10).
The insanity defense just is not fair to the public or to the defendant and therefore needs to be reconsidered, perhaps more states should follow the leads of Montana, Idaho, and Utah who have all eliminated the use of the insanity defense in their jurisdictions (Linhorst & Dirks-Linhorst 1999: 67). They instead use other means to protect their mentally ill defendants and according to Brownfeld (1994), "prevent the insanity defense from being used as an independent defense to avoid a guilty defense." He also goes on to state that, "...no matter how many crime bills we pass, if we permit criminals to escape punishment by claiming 'insanity', we will remain at their mercy (Brownfeld 1994:10)." So by continuing to have an insanity defense, the criminal justice system continues to cater only to the needs of criminals and no one wins.
Works Cited:
Blau, G.L., McGinley, H., and Pasewark, R. (1993). "Understanding the Use of the Insanity Defense". Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 435-440.
Brownfeld, A.C. (1994). "Defense attorneys mad about insanity defense". Human Events, 50, 10.
Chiacchia, K.B. Insanity Defense. Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology (2nd ed.) [Electronic Version]. Thomson-Gale (October 2000). Retrieved March 2, 2005, from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0005/ai_2699000509
Linhorst, D.M., and Dirks-Linhorst, A.P. (1999). "A Critical Assessment of Disposition Options for Mentally Ill Offenders". Social Services Review, 73, 65-79.
McCutcheon, L.E., et. al.(1994). "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity: Getting It Right or Perpetuating the Myths?". Psychological Reports, 74, 764-766.
Paquatte, M. (2002). "This is Insane!". Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 38, 77-78.