An incident where pleading insanity worked in one’s favor is heard in the case of Lee Robin. Lee Robin was a 30-year-old doctor who was charged with murder of his wife and his two year old daughter. Robin admitted to killing his wife with an ax and drowning his infant daughter. After the murders, Robin called the police and reported that there was “a problem” at his home. Soon after, the police arrived.
Dr. Mark Nolan, Senior Lecturer at ANU College of Law, says that the NGRI plea “enables defendants to avoid criminal liability and standard criminal punishment” (Nolan 8). The main disagreement with America is the focus whether if the “guilty defendant” pursues to misuse the “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” as an alternative to imprisonment or if the criminally accused was at the time of committing the crime “clinically insane” and in need psychotherapy. Therefore, during this discussion of opposing viewpoints concerning the insanity defense being misused or ethical are going to be
Mental illness is necessary to use the insanity defense and
In the field of criminal law there is a certain type of criminal defense that comes to the court and has a low success rate. These cases concern the mental capacity of the defendant and if they have enough mental capacity, or are sane enough, to be aware of their crime and consequences of crime. The insanity defense is extremely rare because of how difficult it is for the defense to prove to the court and jury that the defendant did not have the mental capacity to understand what they did wrong and the consequences from it. The case of Myers III v. State of Indiana is one example of criminal responsibility and mental capacity. This case has information that can be connected to the textbook with the insanity defense tests, mental competence
So what can be done? A few numbers of American writers have argued that the insanity defence should be abolished. Two arguments have been relied upon. The first is that the insane defendant should be able to rely upon the same defenses as a sane defendant. For an instance, if an insane person lacks mens rea for an offence he deserves to be acquitted.
What exactly is the insanity defense? In a criminal trial situation the insanity defense is used to explain that the defendant was not responsible for his or her actions at the time the crime was committed due to a mental health illness or a mental handicap. Now you have to think of the reasoning, is this form of defense used as an actual defense for one who irresponsibly committed a crime or as a last resort hoping for an acquittal before a defendant is about to be handed a guilty verdict? Most people being asked would say it is being used for sane people trying to get out of a crime they committed, but I believe the insanity defense is misunderstood by society and should strictly be used for its creation of mentally ill individuals.
During my true crime podcast era, I came across Andrea Yates. Yates was a mother who killed her five young children by drowning them in a bathtub. While listening to this case, it was revealed that the insanity plea, or also known as the insanity defense, was used. It got me thinking about how the plea works and how people would allow this outcome over a jail sentence. The insanity plea is a tough topic to tackle in the world of criminal law.
In the American legal system, there is a well known criminal defense strategy called the insanity defense. This plea ultimately claims and acknowledges that the person being tried was involved in the crime but was not, however, in a sound mental state and should therefore be pardoned from their actions. This idea was created in order to provide a defense for the criminals who do not have a sound mind, getting the court to label them as innocent as a result of their insanity. This particular method of defense falls under something called the excuse defense category, which uses an excuse, in this case insanity, to remove the responsibility of one's actions that resulted in the harm of others or the crime committed. In order for this plea to actually
This case, while Monte Durham wasn’t able to be proven insane, lead to reformations of the M’naghten Rule that would eventually be called the Durham Rule. Going back to Fersch’ book, this would implement more scientific approaches to determine if somebody was legally insane (3). Later in 1984, President Reagan would implement the Comprehensive Crime Control Act that required criminals to prove that they are mentally insane. With the history of the insanity defense concluded, let us take a look at some cases where the insanity defense is involved as the criminal’s reason for their
The fact is that the insanity plea only covers those who are truly insane, and even then, they must provide “clear and convincing evidence”, meaning that there must be some sort of absolute that provides their excuse.(Source C) Many of the crimes that are pleaded for insanity actually fall under diminished capacity. This is where the controversy is born, under the belief that those who are pleading for insanity are only incapacitated, not insane. The Courts are able to distinguish these differences. “Insanity plea statistics reveals that almost 70% of defendants withdrew their defense on insanity plea when their respective state appointed experts found out that they were legally san persons.”
2014, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/so-sue-me/201411/the-difference-between-competency-and-sanity.). The judge also looks at the person’s mental state at the time of the crime. The main difference between competency to stand trial and insanity at the time of the event is that the competency can look at mental and physical health, while the insanity at the time of the event only looks at one’s mental state. The steps required in an insanity plea in the courts are: The M’Naghten rule, which “determines if the defendant understood what they did and could not distinguish right from wrong” (“Insanity Defense - FindLaw.” http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/insanity-defense.html.), The Irresistible Impulse Test, which “tests a defendant’s impulse control” (“Insanity Defense - FindLaw.” http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/insanity-defense.html.), the Durham Rule, which “looks at the defendant’s mental defect as the cause of a criminal act” (“Insanity Defense - FindLaw.”
The insanity defense proves defendants not guilty by arguing that at the time of the crime they lacked the mental capacity to realize that they were committing a crime. This defense is currently used in 46 states, some of which allow defendants to argue that they had no control over their actions even if they realized that what they were doing was unlawful (Mental Health America). The insanity defense was created to impose a moral check on the judicial system; many people argued that if children aren’t punished for crimes because they are too young to realize that their actions are wrong, then adults who aren’t mentally capable of making this distinction shouldn’t be punished either. This defense, however, is often abused, which defeats its
Insanity Defense Imani Batiste Lee College Insanity Defense The insanity defense is described 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” (Encyclopedia, 2005). It was first instituted in late-thirteenth-century England as “Complete Madness” (Encyclopedia, 2005). The defense is based on the belief that people who are ill should be treated for their illness rather than sentenced to prison or death. There are legitimate times when an individual has a serious mental illness that caused their actions because they were not able to process correctly.
For example, people try using insanity as a defense when being prosecuted in a criminal case. (Math, Kumar, and Moirangthem) It is based on the assumptions that at the time of the crime, the defendant was not suffering from severe mental illness. Therefore, they were well aware that they were committing a crime.
Dismiss the Defense How many criminals are we allowing to slip through the Law on the grounds of insanity and are they actually crazy or just crazy smart. The insanity plea allows criminals with a psychotic disorder to be reprieved of a trial because they weren’t working of their own accord during the time of their offense (Bikel, Ofra). Although psychosis can influence mentally and physically (IMH) the plea of insanity is an unjustified form of defense in the American Judicial System. The insanity plea is a unjustified form of defense because of many different reasons. To start with “when someone is developing a serious mental illness with psychosis, such as schizophrenia, they usually do not know it” says Gerald Goodman, PhD in psychology (Kam).
