Insanity Defense - Research Paper Example

Insanity Defense The rationale behind the Insanity Defense In criminal trials, a criminal defendant can be acquitted of the charges by reason of not being responsible for their actions due to insanity or other related mental health problems. Although the use of insanity defense is rare, the exception of mentally handicapped individuals from full criminal punishment has been witnessed in several jurisdictions (Elliott, 10). According to many statutory and case laws, a person is considered not responsible for a criminal action if it can be proven that at the time of the conduct, the defendant lacked capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct because he was insane. There are a number of court rulings that have supported the exception of insane individuals from full criminal punishment. For example, in Ford v. Wainwright (1986), the Supreme Court ruled that insane persons can not be given death penalty or executed before a competency evaluation is carried out. In most jurisdictions, the insanity defense is based on professional evaluation of the defendant by mental health practitioners who then issue a testimony to guide the jury. Consequently individuals who are found not guilty by reason of insanity are generally acquitted and then committed to compulsory psychiatric treatment until such individuals is no longer a threat to the society. The existence of insanity defense has been regarded as an important moral check on our contemporary legal system. This is particularly the provision allows the law to impose psychiatric treatment as opposed to punishment on individuals who lack the capacity to comprehend the criminality or wrongfulness of their actions. Proponents of insanity defense argue that it helps protect the society while at the same time providing rehabilitation to the offenders. In the United States, controversies and variations regarding the application of insanity defense have been attributed to a number of factors such as the definition of insanity, burden of proof and the legality of insanity defense. Competency to stand trial As opposed to insanity defense, competency to stand trial refers to the legal judgment regarding the ability of the defendant to understand and adequately participate in the legal court proceedings in his own defense. Generally competency of a defendant to stand trial depends on the professional evaluation of the defendant’s emotional and cognitive stability during the period of trial. In this regard, competency is largely concerned with present condition of the defendant while criminal insanity addresses the condition of the defendant at the time of committing the crime. In the US criminal justice system, a criminal trial in which insanity defense is invoked usually involves psychiatric evaluation to give a testimony of the defendant’s state of mind both at the time of offense and at the time of trial. The evaluation of the competence of the defendant to proceed to trial is regarded a legal right to every individual facing criminal charges. This is particularly because the law requires that the defendant must be able to factually and rationally understand the charges before he can be allowed to proceed to trial (Dalby, 28). Consequently the pretrial evaluation of the mental state of the defendant should provide sufficient information that can help the jury to make a fair ruling. For example, in Dusky v. United States 362 U.S. 402 (1960), the Supreme Court ruled that the defendant not only have the capacity to understand the implication of the charges but must also be able to consult and aid his attorney in his own defense. The need to reform insanity defense There is a growing need to reform the concept of insanity defense as used in the contemporary justice system. This is particularly with regard to the many conspicuous uncertainties and flaws surrounding insanity defense laws. For example, the mental defect requirement of most mental health facilities does not take into account personality disorders and psychological diseases. According to Gary (184), people who have good mental conditions but are suffering from psychological disorders may commit crimes but can not be exempted under the insanity defense. Consequently the future reforms of the laws of insanity defense should link insanity defense with the concept of criminal responsibility. On the other hand, although psychopathy and other brain abnormalities are considered a mental disorder, it does not fall under the insanity defense. It should be noted that just like other mental defects, brain abnormalities have the capacity to affect the understanding, reason and memory of individuals and should therefore be included in insanity defense because they prevent an individual from understanding the wrongfulness of their acts. One of the most important possible reforms to insanity defense includes basing insanity defense on the irrationality and capacity of the defendants to rationally understand their actions. This will involve the inclusion of brain abnormalities such as psychopathy in insanity defense laws. Although some people have proposed that defendants who have been found guilty for crimes but are not responsible for such crimes due to insanity should be punished, the proposal does not make any sense because only persons who had the capacity to appreciate nature of his actions at the time of crime should be regarded as rational and therefore responsible in law (Scott, 66). In the US criminal justice system, an individual should be punished or held responsible for is actions if he did not understand the nature and wrongfulness of his actions because of a mental defect or illness. Consequently it is legally fair and morally rights that an individual who is not responsible for their crimes should be exempted from liability for the commission of crimes. In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the Supreme Court ruled that criminals that the eighth Amendment prohibits punishing or executing mentally retarded criminals arguing that such punishments constitute cruel and unusual punishment. In my opinion, that defendants who have been found guilty for crimes but are not responsible for such crimes due to insanity should be instead be rehabilitated by committing them to psychiatric facilities until they are no longer a threat to the society. This is particularly because since their criminal behavior was not out of their own free will (Mackay and Howe, 405). The case of Ralph Tortorici The case of People v. Tortorici, 671 NYS2d 162 can be used to best highlight the ineffectiveness of our contemporary justice system. Although Ralph Tortorici was evidently a paranoid schizophrenic who had a long history of mental illness, he was found guilty of several counts of aggravated assault and kidnapping and sentenced to 47 years in prison. Ralph later on committed suicide in his prison cell by hanging himself with a sheet. Tortorrici’s death clearly showed that our criminal justice system focuses more on what is legal and less on morality and what is right. He did not receive justice and our ineffective insanity defense laws were responsible for his death. In my opinion, the case would have been handled more appropriately by the prosecutor Cheryl Coleman than how it was handled. For example, the court could have carried out an evaluation of the competence of the defendant to proceed to trial to ascertain whether in deed the defendant had the capacity to understand the implication of the charges or aid his attorney in his own defense. Consequently the trial could have only been fair if it were based on a psychiatric evaluation of the defendant’s state of mind both at the time of offense and at the time of trial. In conclusion, although the current insanity defense laws are designed to protect the society as well as provide rehabilitation to the offenders, there is an urgent need to reform the defense because of the many conspicuous uncertainties and flaws surrounding insanity defense laws. For example, our criminal justice should be reformed to focus more on morality and what is right as opposed to what is legal. Works Cited Dalby, John T. “The case of Daniel McNaughton: Let's get the story straight”. American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 27(2006):17-32.Print. Elliott, Carl. The rules of insanity: moral responsibility and the mentally ill offender, New York: Sunny Press.1996. Print. Gary, Melton. Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers. New York: The Guilford Press.1997. Print. Mackay, B. Mitchell and Howe L. “Yet more facts about the insanity defense” Criminal Law Review (2006):399-411.Print. Scott H. Decker Controversies in Criminal Justice. New York: Oxford University Press.2001. Print. Read More