Insanity Defense

One of the many defenses defendants can use in modern courts is the insanity defense. Less then one percent of all defendants use the insanity as a defense. In felony cases only one percent of defendants use insanity s a defense and in 25% of these cases juries rule not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). (Carpenter, 1992)

LEGAL DEFENITION

The legal definition of insanity in a legal reference is the judicial determination that an individual�s degree or quantity of mental disorder relieves him or her of criminal responsibility for illegal actions. (Bartol, 1994) This basically means in layman�s terms that if an individual does not have the ability to understand the difference between a legal and an illegal act is so impaired that he or she can not be held criminally responsible for their actions. Many defendants who use the insanity defense do not succeed in it because they are unable to prove that they were insane at the time of the act.

INSANITY DEFENSE ACT OF 1984

In 1984 the United States Congress passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act. This act made it harder for a defendant to use the not guilty by reason of insanity defense in the federal court system. (Bartol, 1994) Congress made many reforms to the insanity defense in this act. Some of the major changes were: 1) the defendant now had the burden of proof.; 2) volitional prong was eliminated; 3) verdict form changed; and 4) the role of the expert witness was limited. (Bartol, 1994)

Under the act the defendant now has to prove that he is mentally ill instead of the prosecution proving that he isn�t. This change makes the insanity defense almost improbable for the defense. Just because the burden of proof switches to the defense does not mean that the prosecution does not still try to prove the defendant sane. The prosecution usually will present evidence proving the defense is sane to which the defense must prove is not correct. Because the expert witness role has changed also it makes the task of proving insanity that much more difficult. Under the Insanity Defense Reform Act an expert witness is no longer allowed to give his or her opinion on weather or not the defendant was sane or insane at the time of the act. They must now prove that the defendant was insane by using one of the rules that will be discussed later in this paper.

The elimination of volitional prong helps the prosecution because the defendant is not able to claim that he or she was not able to make his actions conform to the legal standard. Because of this change it is harder for the defendant to prove irresistible impulse. The last change is the change in the verdict allowed. Juries can now only acquit defendants by using the not guilty by reason of insanity. This change is little but significant because it says that the defendant would be guilty if it was not for the his or her mental illness.

USE OF INSANITY DEFENSE

According to an article in the April 17, 1992 issue of Science, many defendants do not use insanity as a defense because they realize that if they are convicted by not guilty by reasons of insanity they will be involuntarily admitted to a mental institution and most likely spend more time in said mental institution then they will in prison. Also it is a proven fact that criminal acts committed after release from a mental institution or from a prison is prominate in those released from the prisons then the mental institution. (Carpenter, 1992)

To help decide if a defendant is insane a number of test have been developed. The test change from state to state but primarily are based on three major models. The models they are based on are the M�Naghten Rule, the Durham Rule and the ALI Rule. Some states also recognize irresistible impulse as a means from determining insanity.

The M�Naughten Rule basically tells the us that if a defendant is insane he or she must not be able to tell the difference between what is right and what is wrong. The reason for not being able to tell the difference between right and wrong but me a mental disease or defect. This is the most commonly used rule for determining insanity. According to the Durham Rule, the defendant is not responsible for unlawful acts if the act was the produce of a mental illness or defect and the illness must have played a major role in the criminal act. The third of the models is the ALI Rule. This says that a person is not responsible if at the time of the act, the defendant lacked the capacity to conform his or her conduct to the legal standards because of the mental illness. (Bartol, 1994)

VICTIMS OF INSANITY

The defendant is not the only one that has to deal with an insanity defense. The victim of the crime also have to deal with the insanity defense. They have to deal with the fact that the person or persons who has committed a crime against them might be found not guilty by reasons of insanity. Many victims think that a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity is letting a criminal off. To many victims, especially of murder, letting the defendant off with the insanity defense is not justice at all. Dr. and Mrs. Reichardt are victims of a murder case where the defendant was convicted under the not guilty by reason of insanity. Their son Kevin was shot and killed in 1995 at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. The Reichardts are one of many families across the nation that do not believe that justice was served because of the use of the insanity defense in their son Kevin�s murder trial. (Vatz, 1998) Many of the victims families think that anyone, especially the mental health professionals, who believe in the release of insanity defense victims are some of the most insensitive individuals in society. (Vatz, 1998)

CASE STUDY

One of the most known cases dealing with the insanity defense is the case of the Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski. The Kaczynski is accused of an 18-year period causing the death of three people and injuring two dozen plus more. Kaczynski did not want to plea mentally ill at first and he refused to submit to a psychiatric evaluation this made the death penalty a possible outcome. Kaczynski had made a few attempts at suicide which his lawyers turned into evidence to prove that he was mentally ill. Eventually Kaczynski was ordered to undergo an evaluation of his mental state and to see if he was able to stand trial. Kaczynski was eventually found to be a paranoid schizophrenic. Kaczynski�s lawyers did not get the insanity defense in but did try to use it as their way of getting a not guilty verdict. Kaczynski eventually entered a plea bargain of guilty. (Vatz, 1998)

CONCLUSION

Of all the defenses that defendants can use in a criminal case the insanity defense is not widely used. Many people do not like the insanity defense and say that it is allowing criminals who do get by using the defense free. The insanity defense is used in less then one percent of all criminal cases and I do not see this statistic change much in the near future.

REFERENCES

Bartol and Bartol, (1994). Competencies and Criminal Responsibility: Assessments for the Criminal Courts. Psychology and Law (2nd Edition) Brooks/Cole, Pacific Crove CA.

Carpenter, William T. , (1994). The Insanity Defense and Mental Illness. Science v 256 n5055 p292 (2).

Vatz, Richard E. (1998). The Unabombers Twisted Saga. USA Today Magazine, v 127 n 2638 p. 56 (3)

Vatz, Richard E. (1998). The Insanity Defense: Unconscionable impact on Victims of Violence. USA Today Magazine, v 126 n 2636 p 50 (3)

Background provided by

The Dark Son

Women and the Death Penalty

Home