The Insanity Defense

            The Insanity defense is defined as "A defense asserted by an accused in a criminal prosecution to avoid liability for the commission of a crime because, at the time of the crime, the person did not appreciate the nature or quality or wrongfulness of the acts." (Farlex, 2011).  This defense, over the years, has gotten mixed reactions from both the public and public officials.  Many feel that it is misused and abused by criminals attempting to evade justice.

            There are two different forms of the insanity defense, the more common of which is cognitive insanity (Farlex, 2011).  Under this type, the defendant asserts that he/she had been "so impaired by mental disease or defect at the time" that they were not mentally capable of understanding the consequences of their actions or, if they did know what the consequences would be, "they did not know that the act was wrong".  

            The other form of the insanity defense is volitional insanity or "irresistible impulse". This is when the defendant suffered from a mental disease/defect at the time of the incident and was incapable of controlling his or her actions (Farlex, 2011).  An example of this would be if you woke someone up suddenly and they reacted violently by pulling a knife out from under a pillow and slitting your throat.

            Surprisingly, the insanity defense is rarely used and when it is, it is less often successful.   A study which had been done in the early 1990s concluded that, in cases where the defendants had used the insanity plea, less than 1% are ever acquitted (Farlex, 2011).  In another "survey of the use of the insanity defense in eight states between 1976 and 1985 found that although the public estimated that the insanity defense was used in 37% of the cases, the actual rate was only 0.9% (Silver, Cirincione, & Steadman, 1994)" (Fortune, Ch 8).

            One of the major criticisms of the insanity defense today, is that it is used by criminals to either lessen their sentences or win acquittals.  Many people feel that the defendants on trial attempt to fake their mental illnesses in an attempt to escape punishment for their crimes.  Unless a person is a psychologist, who has been trained to identify the markers, it can be very difficult (if not impossible) for them to assess whether or not the defendant actually has a mental defect/disease. However, the public is unaware of all of the steps that are taken by the courts and the forensic psychologists to prove that the defendant is actually mentally ill. 

            One other major criticism of this defense is that it is used as "a jail dodge for the rich". (Fortune, pg 244)  However, this has been shown not to be true.  According to Fortune, studies have failed to find socioeconomic or racial bias in the use or the success of the insanity defense (Boehnert, 1989; Howard & Clark, 1985; Nicholson et al., 1991; Pasewark & Pantle, 1981; Steadman et al., 1983). 

            Many people in society today argue that the insanity defense relies too heavily on psychiatric experts.   These experts are looked upon to determine the mental state of someone as a certainty, not a probability, which is not what a psychologist has been trained to do.  Psychology is really a study of probabilities.  Psychologists determine how “probable” something is.  Determining ‘certainties’ is outside of their thinking.  Therefore, their expertise is put to the test. 

            A major problem facing prosecutors and the courts is the use of psychologists versus psychiatrists.  The difference being that psychiatrists are actually doctors who have and hold verifiable degrees with accredited colleges and universities.  Psychologists, on the other hand, require less training, usually hold little or no degrees and are loved by prosecuting attorneys as they can be readily discredited as having insufficient training or expertise to be credible witnesses to the defendant’s state of mind or mental health.

            Yet another problem is the providing of appropriate psychological treatment to criminal offenders is that they will be hospitalized and not jailed and because the offenders are not "behind bars", there is always the danger that they can gain access to drugs, cutting instruments, and other items that they could use to harm the people around them.  You have to think of the safety of the doctors, nurses, and others who work in that facility. 

            Another reason providing treatment to a mentally ill prisoner could potentially become difficult, is if they decide that they do not want or need the treatment.  They could become increasingly hostile toward their caregivers and eventually act out toward them. 

            The insanity defense is one of the most debated parts of our legal system.  Many people simply do not believe that it is a viable one.  They feel that there is too much danger that it can be taken advantage of and misused by criminals looking for an easy way to get out of paying for their crimes.  Luckily, it is up to the trained experts to determine which criminals truly have mental defects/disease and who does not.

 

The Gale Group, Inc., 2008,http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Insanity+Defense

John P. Martin, 1998, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/aron/qa227.htm

Fortune W.H., Greene E., Heilbrun K., Nietzel M.T., 2006, Psychology and the Legal System