The Insanity Defense
The Insanity DefenseINTRODUCTION
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. 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. In all,
I believe that these problems, as well as others which will be
mentioned later, lead us to the conclusion that the insanity defense
is useless and should be abolished entirely. Insanity is a legal, not
a medical definition. 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. Due to this, there are problems in exactly how to apply
a medical theory to a legal matter (Herman, 1983;128). The legal
concepts of mental illness and insanity raise questions in a conflict
between what are termed legalistic criminology and scientific
criminology: mens rea, punishment v. treatment, responsibility, and
prisons v. hospitals. This debate seesaws to and fro amidst a grey
area between law and science. The major difficulty with a theory such
as mental illness is that it is just that, a theory. To scientists
theories are a way of life, but applied to the concept of law theories
become somewhat dangerous. By applying a loose theory such as mental
illness to law we are in essence throwing the proverbial "monkey
wrench" into the wheels of justice.
TESTING FOR INSANITY
At the center of the legal use of insanity lies the mens rea.
Every crime involves a physical act, or actus reus, and a mental act,
or mens rea, the non-physical cause of behavior. The mens rea is the
mental element required for a crime, and if absent excuses the
defendant from criminal responsibility and punishment (Jeffery,
1985;49). The difficulty here lies in analyzing the mens rea. In order
to do this lawyers apply one of several rules used by psychologists.
These rules range from the Irresistible Impulse Test to the M'Naghten
Rule. Each of these rules approach mental illness/capacity in a
different way and in my opinion each falls short of actual proof. I
will discuss each...
To view the complete essay, you be registered.