Insanity Defense

Background

Probably the most controversial of all criminal defense strategies, the INSANITY DEFENSE is also, ironically, one of the least used.

On many occasions when it has been used, particularly in the much-publicized 1984 ACQUITTAL of John W. Hinckley for an attempted assassination of a president, the insanity defense has tended to provoke public debate. (Pollock, pp 82-84)

Introduction

A criminal defense asserting that at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. U.S.C. 18. (American Jurisprudence, pp 64)

A person is insane, and is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts.

This is because willfull intent is an essential part of most offenses; and a person who is insane is not capable of forming such intent. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense; the person has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence. (Reider, pp 123-25)

Main Body

The insanity defense is a plea option in which the defendant seeks acquittal for the alleged criminal offense by reason of insanity. Insanity is a legal term, not a psychological or medical one. The Sarasons prefer to use the term “maladaptive behavior” instead of insane or insanity. Maladaptive behavior is, “behavior that deals inadequately with a situation, especially one that is stressful”. (Pollock, pp 82-84)

The insanity defense refers to that branch of the concept of insanity which defines the extent to which men accused of crimes may be relieved of criminal responsibility by virtue of mental disease. The terms of such a defense are to be found in the instructions presented by the trial judge to the jury at the close of a case. These instructions can be drawn from any of several rules used in the determination of mental illness. The final determination of mental illness rests solely on the jury who uses information drawn from the testimony of "expert" witnesses, usually professionals in the field of psychology. (Reider, pp 123-25)

The net result of such a determination places an individual accordingly, be it placement in a mental facility, incarceration, or outright release. Due to these aforementioned factors, there are several problems raised by the existence of the insanity defense. Problems such as the actual possibility of determining mental illness, justifiable placement of judged "mentally ill" offenders, and the overall usefulness of such a defense.

Therefore, mental illness and insanity are not synonymous: only some mental illness constitutes insanity. Insanity, however, includes not only mental illness but also mental deficiencies. (Pollock, pp 82-84)

In the insanity defense we have no variable independent of the criminal behavior we are studying. Insanity refers to a class of behaviors known by observing ...