The Insanity Verdict On Trial By Scott O. Lilienfeld

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.

My problem

The Insanity Verdict on Trial written by Scott O. Lilienfeld. This article explains how the insanity defense originally came about, through Daniel McNaighton in 1843. McNaighton was acquitted after planning to kill the British Prime Minister and accidentally ending up killing his secretary. McNaighton’s reasoning behind the attack was that he thought the government was out to get him, thus a form of mental insanity. “Reacting to public anger to the verdict, a panel of judges fashioned a guideline for insanity, now called the McNaughton rule: to be declared insane, defendants must either not have known what they were doing at the time or not have realized their actions were wrong” (Lilienfeld). Lilienfeld then goes on to explain the two sides of the defense, the critics and the advocates. The critics believe that anyone, no matter their mental state, that commit an illegal offense should be charged as guilty and face the same sentence. The advocates believe that if the defendant has a mental illness that obscures their mental state then they should not be charged with the crime and should rather be hospitalized or

Reforming the Insanity Defense: The Need for a Psychological Defect Plea written by Allyson L. Gay. This article focuses on serial killers and their psychotic mental disorders. Gay points out that technically serial killers are mentally insane and therefore should be able to use the insanity defense in a trial. However, because a serial killer has obviously committed the same crime numerous times, the form of the insanity defense should be reformed. “Psychopathy does not fit into the McNaughton test. However, a serial killer suffering from psychopathy cannot control his or her impulses, identify with others and feel empathy, and cannot conform his or her behavior to social norms. Thus, proving he or she cannot possibly be completely competent and responsible for their actions, no matter how heinous” (Gay). However, there is a difference between someone diagnosed with psychopathy and someone with anti-social personality disorder. “Unlike serial killers with psychopathy, those with anti-social personality disorder should not be allowed to plead guilty by reason of insanity. They lack empathy but otherwise understand what they are doing. Unlike serial killers with psychopathy they manipulate the system to benefit their own means to an end. Allowing this disorder to fall into the insanity defense would feed into their disorder in that it would allow for the manipulation of the system to