Cjus 230 - a Plea of Insanity

A Plea of Insanity

Brandy N. Frazier

CJUS 230-B01

Professor Jennifer DeBoer

The insanity plea is a defense that states the defendant did not know what they were doing at the time of the crime. Using the insanity defense is a tactic used by lawyers for a defense in criminal proceedings. Insanity is not a medical definition, but a legal definition. Mental illness and insanity are not the same, but insanity does include mental illness and mental deficiencies. Pleading insanity is the hardest defense to successfully achieve and is used far more often as a defense tactic to avoid punishment.

The myths surrounding the insanity defense lead people to believe that criminals can avoid punishment by claiming insanity. When the insanity defense is looked at it is far more risky then going through a trial pleading innocence. The advocates for the insanity plea contend that the principle of criminal law is at stake. The belief of the insanity defense is that the conviction and punishment are only acceptable only if the defendant deserves them. "When a person is so mentally disturbed that her irrationality or compulsion is impossible to control, that person lacks responsibility as a moral agent. It would be unfair to punish a person in such an extreme condition." (Spiegel, 2006).

Forty-eight out of the fifty states have some type of insanity defense. When it comes to the public they are given a distorted view of who uses the defense and how it is used in a trial. There is about only one percent of criminal defendants who use the insanity defense. Even though criminals are pleading insanity they do not "beat the rap" by making this plea. When an insanity defense is engaged it means the defendant admits to committing the crimes and is now seeking a not guilty verdict on the basis of their state of mind. If the jury does not agree that the accused is mentally ill, the defendant will be convicted, and will serve a longer sentence than will someone convicted of the same crime who has not pleaded insanity. (Torrey, 2008).

The insanity defense originated in England in 1843 and became known as the M'Naghten rule. This happened after a paranoid schizophrenic was found not guilty after shooting and killing a person. With the rule, it said that a person could not be held legally responsible for criminal actions committed while suffering a mental disorder. To be considered insane at the time of committing a crime, it would have to be proven that the person was not aware of what they were doing or did not understand that they were doing wrong. In both the US and England they felt the law was too lenient; no one should be excused of crimes as long as they are capable of controlling their behavior. The Alabama Supreme Court in 1887 devised the "irresistible impulse test." Under this new law, people who wanted to plead insanity had to demonstrate that they were incapable of controlling their behavior when their crimes were committed.

The Irresistible Impulse Test rules a person out from being responsible for committing a crime due to the fact that they were unable to control personal conduct. The M'Naghten Rule shows that a criminal knows right from wrong, but they are unable to exercise self-control because of a disabling mental condition. The Impulse test is combined with the M'Naghten Rule to determine if the person fits into mental incapacity. Many criticize the Impulse test and say it can be misleading. With the M'Naghten rule it focuses on cognition, while the IIT test focuses on function of the person. Additionally, it has been asserted that the concept at best has medical significance in only minor crimes resulting from obsession-compulsion, and that seldom, if ever, can it be shown that this disorder results in the commission of a major crime. (Winslade, 1983). These tests can be misleading and the claim is subject to the objection that is cannot be proven It is impossible for anyone to define mental disease or defect, and product does not give the jury a reliable standard by which to base a decision on.

The Durham rule also known as the product test was founded in New Hampshire in 1871. The Durham rule shows that a defendant is not criminally responsible if his act was the product of a mental disorder. This rule was a simplified version of the M'Naghten rule and Irresistible impulse test. The diagnosis of mental disease was still difficult to prove. The jury had to answer two questions about the defendant having a mental illness. To get a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, the jury had to answer yes to both questions asked. The Durham rule was criticized because if provided no definitions that were needed, such as mental disease and defect. The circuit court later rejected the Durham rule and is no longer used except in the state of New Hampshire. They circuit court later adopted the American law institute test.

The American law institute test was founded in 1953 by medical professionals. The test was made to solve the problems of all the earlier insanity tests that had failed. It was designed to implement some psychiatric advances and to avoid the causation problems present in the Durham test. By now the M'Naghten test was outdated. The American law institute test now included volitional and the irresistible impulse components when a psychiatrist studied criminal behavior. The test looked at the defendant's ability to understand their actions and how they controlled them. The American law institute test was a combination of the M'Naghten and Irresistible Impulse tests just rewritten with a different language. The M'Naghten test was no longer used in the court system after the ALI test was brought into the court system.

Cognitive insanity is the most used defense in the court system today. With the test for cognitive insanity, a defendant must have been so impaired by a mental disease or defect at the time of the act that he or she did not know the nature or quality of the act, or, if the defendant did know the nature or quality of the act, he or she did not know that the act was wrong. (Torrey, 2008). The majority of states allow criminal defendants to invoke the cognitive insanity defense. The defendant must go through testing to determine their state of mind. The insanity defense however should not to be confused with incompetency. (Berman, 2007).

Volitional insanity or irresistible impulse is another defense that is used in criminal cases. The defense of irresistible impulse asserts that the accused, even though