Forensic Psychology: Exploring the Insanity Plea - Research Paper Example

 Forensic Psychology: Exploring the Insanity Plea Introduction The court proceedings are faced with a number of individuals whose mental status is either good or bad. Individuals with mental issues such as mental disorders have difficulty in making the right decisions when charged with a felony that they committed. In most of the cases, the defendant who has mental issues can make decisions that are contrary and he/she becomes incarcerated. The attorneys and the judges may not be in the best position to know if an individual has a mental issue or not. They are assisted by evaluators who are capable of ascertaining that the individual has a mental illness that has impaired his or her thinking and hence cannot the right judgment among other things; the defendant can therefore be acquitted on the basis of incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity. Mental Illness According to the Texas Health and Safety Code art. 571.033(14), mental illness is defined as a disease, condition or illness, other than senility, mental deficiency or epilepsy that; (a) significantly impairs an individual’s perception of reality, thoughts, judgment, or emotional process, or (b) completely impairs the behavior as shown by the recent disturbed behavior. Majority of the important criminal statutes take in a cross reference to the definition provided. Mental disorders are very common and based on the statistics, 1 in 5 Americans has some form of mental disorder at any given year (Texas Appleseed and Texas Tech University School of Law, 2005). Approximately 15 percent of all the individuals with mental illness have an associated substance abuse disorder; the percentage is high in the criminal justice system. Between 16 and 20 percent of the prison and jail population has a considerable mental illness such as major depression, schizophrenia and bipolar disease at any particular time; this exceeds the disorder rate in the general population. Majority of the people with mental illness who are in jail are arrested for offenses which are nonviolent. In most of the cases, individuals with mental illness get in trouble with the law if they are untreated, undiagnosed or when they discontinue their medication (Texas Appleseed and Texas Tech University School of Law, 2005). Serious Mental Illness There are a number of mental illnesses and the intensity of the severity range from mild forms to life threatening forms. Majority of the serious mental illnesses such as major depression, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are chronic but they can be ameliorated or managed with proper treatment and medication (Texas Appleseed and Texas Tech University School of Law, 2005). Schizophrenia is a form of mental disorder that impairs the individual’s capability to make judgments, remember, behave appropriately, think, communicate, think and/or interpret reality so as to completely interfere with the individual’s capability to meet the life’s ordinary demands. Symptoms of this disorder include confusing and disconnected language, poor reasoning, and delusions, deterioration of personal hygiene and appearance, and hallucinations. Manic-depressive illness or bipolar disorder is characterized by the individual’s moods that alternate between two extremes of mania (excitement that is exaggerated) and depression. The manic phase of the disorder is frequently associated with rapid speech, irritability, increased activity, and delusions (Texas Appleseed and Texas Tech University School of Law, 2005). Major depression is a mental illness that is severe than the normal depression experienced by people occasionally. Individuals who suffer from major depression may entirely lose interest in their daily activities, have problematic sleeping, unable to do the daily tasks, have suicidal thoughts, unable to concentrate properly, and have the feeling of guilt, hopelessness, and worthlessness. Majority of these disorders can disable and affect the individual’s thinking, behavior and relation with other people. As an attorney, one can assist to ensure that the administration of justice is efficient, fair and humane by taking into consideration the defendants with mental illness (Texas Appleseed and Texas Tech University School of Law, 2005). Incompetent to Stand Trial The criminal prosecutors, judges and attorney due to the nature of their work are incapable of identifying a mental condition that can render the defendant legally insane or incompetent to stand a trial. In the American jurisprudence, there is a tradition practiced in which the defendant is required to be competent to stand a trial in a criminal proceeding (Swerdlow-Freed, 2003). The competency to stand a trial is a mandate required by the constitution and it requires the defendant to be capable to understand their charges and help the attorney in the preparation of the defense (The CMHS National GAINS Center for Systemic Change for Justice-Involved People with Mental Illness, 2007). Pretrial competency assessments are pursued in a small number of felony cases which are typically not more than 8 percent and are around a third of the defendants whose competency is legitimate but they have not been referred for assessment (Swerdlow-Freed, 2003). Societal and constitutional problems come into limelight when the incompetent defendants are forced to stand a trial since they are incapable of helping in their own defense. Incompetent defendants are not capable of exercising properly their right to the due process and it includes assisting and selecting defense counsel, confronting the witnesses and to testify on their behalf. There is no credible rehabilitative or social aim that is accomplished by putting the defendant on punishment and he/she is unable to understand the purpose and nature of the legal proceeding, and who is not capable of understanding the reason for which the sentence was imposed (Swerdlow-Freed, 2003). Competence to stand trial is an ideology of the jurisprudence to permit the postponement of a criminal proceeding on the ground that the defendants are regarded as incapable to take part in their defense due to physical or mental disorder (Roesch and Zapf, 2000). There are problems in the definition and assessment of competency and it has led to a number of definitions in the legal practice. The legislatures and the courts have offered the mental health professionals with the responsibility of evaluating and defining competency; however, there are some cases where mental status problems like the absence or presence of psychosis have played a significant role in the evaluators’ findings. The problem in this case is that the evaluators equate psychosis with incompetency and the evaluators rarely take into consideration the particular demands of the defendant’s case (Golding et al., 2004). The trial competency issues are raised significantly than the insanity defense and the psychologists who are involved in forensic evaluation and consultation are most likely to experience it. Statistics indicate that between 25,000 and 39,000 competency assessments are performed in the United States per year (Golding et al., 2004). A third of all the admissions of criminal offenders with mental disorders in the federal and state health facilities are for the incompetence to stand trial. In majority of the jurisdictions, the incompetent to stand trial defendants (individuals with mental retardation), are remanded to mental health facilities for a period of compulsory confinement and treatment to restore their competency to stand trial (Guilmette, Krup and Wall, 2003, p189). Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity Not guilty by reason of insanity can be defined as the denial of guilt due to a mental disease or a defect that excludes responsibility. A trial follows in which the mental fitness of the defendant becomes an issue and the defendant may plead both guilty and not guilty by the reason of insanity (Koster, 2009). Insanity defense statutes take into consideration individuals with a defect or a mental disease, who are not able to intend criminal behavior at the time they commit potentially criminal acts (Reid, 2006, p115). The insanity defense is not used frequently and this is in contrast to the popular belief; winning such a case is not easy. The Constitution requires that the insanity defense be available to the qualified defendants and the defendants who are found not guilty by reason of insanity are to spend a considerable length of time in the mental facilities than they would have spent imprisoned if they were found guilty. The aim of the insanity defense is associated with the old and well-tested condition for finding the defendants guilty; the prosecution must be capable of proving that the alleged act was committed and in a criminal way. There should be clear distinction on the prosecution side; killing is not similar to murder and taking is not similar to stealing. For the crime to be committed, the actor must have the intention to commit the crime (Reid, 2006). The insanity defense has not been exhaustively explored by researchers in sociology, psychology and criminal justice. The researchers have not been capable of examining variables such as the defendant’s psychiatric history, previous criminal history, and the particular characteristics of the crime to determine if these factors can impact the plea effectiveness in an existent court trial. Recent studies have mainly focused on the statistics that surround the insanity defense such as the frequency of its use (it is rarely used) and when used, the insanity defense results in a small number of defendants released as not guilty by reason of insanity (Conner, 2006). Not guilty by reason of insanity plea has received a significant attention when John Hinckley utilized it successfully in 1982 after he attempted to assassinate President Reagan. As a response to the ruling, majority of the states enacted legislations to eliminate the plea to a successful defense very difficult. Some of the states were forced to adopt a strict M’Naughten standard which required the mental illness to impair the individual’s capability to understand the consequence and the nature of his or her actions and to distinguish right from wrong. Basically, voluntary intoxication does not amount to a considerable reason to declare insanity. Recent research has been investigating the various characteristics of the defendants who plead not guilty by reason of insanity. The researchers are also investigating the processes by which the evaluators create their psycholegal opinions (Guillory et al., 2007). Conclusion The insanity plea has attracted much attention because of its capability to acquit an individual who is presumed to have a mental illness on the basis of incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity. The fact that some of the criminal offenders are apprehended for crimes committed because of their mental status cannot be ignored. Defining and evaluating if an individual has a mental illness has remained to be difficult. Some of the criminal offenders have successfully used the insanity plea; a good example is the 1982 John Hinckley’s case. References Conner, K. (2006). Factors in a successful use of the insanity defense: Is there more to insanity than a state of mind?: Factors associated with successful use of the insanity defense. Internet Journal of Criminology, 1-10. Golding, S. L., Roesch, R., Skeem, J. L. & Zapf, P. A. (2004). Defining and assessing competency to stand trial. Retrieved from http://www.xmission.com/~sgolding/publications/new_ist.htm Guillory, S., McDermott, B. E., Novak, B., & Scott, C. L. (2007). Sex offenders and insanity: An examination of 42 individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35, 444-450. Guilmette, T., Krupp, B. H. & Wall, B. W. (2003). Restoration of competency to stand trial: A training program for persons with mental retardation. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31, 189-201. Koster, C. (2009). The court process. Jefferson City, MO: Office of Attorney General. Reid, W. H. (2006). Sanity evaluations and criminal responsibility. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2(3), 114-146. Roesch, R. & Zapf, P. A. (2000). Mental competency evaluations: Guidelines for judges and attorneys. Court Review, 28-35. Swerdlow-Freed, D. H. (2003). Assessment of competency to stand trial & criminal responsibility. Michigan Criminal Law Annual Journal, 24-28. Texas Appleseed and Texas Tech University School of Law. (2005). Mental illness, your client and the criminal law: A handbook for attorneys who represent persons with mental illness. Austin, Texas: Author. The CMHS National GAINS Center for Systemic Change for Justice-Involved People with Mental Illness. (2007). Quick fixes for effectively dealing with persons found incompetent to stand trial. Author. Read More