Summary Of Is Guilty Insane Or Not By John White

John White, the author of “Guilty Is Guilty, Insane or Not” an article written in The New York Times, creates an argument that he is clearly passionate about but also an argument that lacks substance. Published on February 25, 1979, the article is written during a time period where law and psychology were being introduced to each other. John White conceives an argument that when a plaintiff enters an insanity defense and is found not guilty by reason of insanity or mental defect, he or she is virtually getting away with murder. This argument he presents is highly vague, has no evidence, and is also premature due to the changes within the legal system during this time. John White states in paragraph three “Consider murder trials in which

The insanity plea allowed judges to sentence them to mental hospitals for observation and treatment. There they were found sane and released because they can’t be tried twice for the same crime.” In these few sentences you can already determine White’s position on the topic. His writings suggest the insanity plea is a means to release an untamed monster into the wild again. This is quite untrue however. The insanity plea was created as a compassionate way to help the individuals who would benefit more from a mental institute rather than a prison. White’s position firm and filled with conviction, however it lacks substance and makes the reader question his research. In four states alone there are no verdicts where an individual can plead not guilty by insanity. He directs his argument with the examples of individuals such as David R. Berkowitz, Jim Jones, and Adolph Eichman. David R. Berkowitz was an individual who attempted the insanity plea but was denied that plea and was found guilty and sentenced to six life sentences in prison on

Even though this organization was founded in 1969, it was not until 1977 that their first major journal appeared known as “ Law and Human Behavior.” This was the beginning of many published works with theories and finding on these fields. One basic source of tension between psychology and law is that, “psychology is descriptive and law is prescriptive” (Haney, 1981) The argument here is that law is to regulate behavior while psychology is how people actually behave. However, even with this argument the two must intertwine. This is why many states provide an insanity plea, because neither psychology nor law can find absolute truth or justice but scientists must strive for the circa of truth and courts must strive for approximation of justice. White argues in a time where the binding of psychology and law had just begun. Geerty Hofstede, social psychologist found that cultures could be categorized by “uncertainty avoidance” in a 1991 study. Legal systems rank high on uncertainty, meaning they set forth intricate rules and regulations. This is done to provide clarity and to keep society stable. Putting an end to a dispute requires an evident ruling even if the case itself is ambiguous. States created the insanity plea to give a certain ruling for a much more complex idea. The idea of insanity is broad and often open to interpretation and the