Assessment of Mental State for Insanity Plea - Research Paper Example

? Assessment of Mental for Insanity Plea In most of the criminal trials, there is a form of defense where defendantsoften claim that they are not responsible for the actions due to some mental problems that are health based. This calls for forensic psychologists to evaluate the scenario and determine whether the claims are genuine or non-genuine. This paper is going to analyze an abbreviated literature review on assessment of mental state for insanity. Assessment of Mental State for Insanity Plea Introduction Forensic psychology involves justice system and psychology. In most cases, forensic involves deep comprehension of criminal law in the relevant field in order to be in a position to work together in a suitable manner with the attorneys, judges and other authorized professionals (Simon & Shuman, 2002). Historically, in the past periods individuals in the society had developed a variety of different tests for finding whether individuals who committed crimes were out of their sanity or not. One of the very vital aspects of forensic psychology is having the capacity to give evidence in court and reformulating psychological results into the officially authorized verbal communication of the courtroom (Grachek, 2006). This is for the purpose of providing correct information to the legal personnel in a manner that they can comprehend and be in a position to come up with fair verdict of a case. Forensic psychology as an applied science is very useful in court because it assists the forensic psychologist not to lose credibility when taking a stand on a case (Halpern et al., 1984). Assessment of Mental State for Insanity Plea Assessment process of the mind is a psychology practice where a person’s current state of mind is observed under the realm of behavior, mood, thoughts, judgments and attitude. The purpose of this practice is to get hold of a detailed description of an individual state of mind, and when combined with some other data of the person, the psychologist can be able to get some reasons behind certain actions (Hinckley, 1981). The consideration of the mentally ill offenders for an insanity plea is a disputed issue due to the risk posed to the society by them and the large numbers of the offenders in the correctional facilities. In most of the criminal trials, the insanity plea is when a defendant ascertains that they are not liable for the events that were committed earlier due to problems pertaining to their mental health. This can grant them an exception from full criminal punishment by the court (Hinckley, 1981). In insanity plea of not being responsible, states, more specifically order that due to extenuating circumstances of mental illness, the defendant should not be held ethically chargeable for the offense (Simon & Shuman, 2002). The reason behind this statement is that, the individual’s mental illness affects his ability to be in a position to comprehend his deeds and confirm his conduct to law. There cannot be full or severe punishment when charge cannot be obligatory (Pasewark, Seidenzahl & Pantle, 1981). Legally, for the defendant to plead the insanity plea, they have to reveal that there was a connection between the mental illness and the criminal offence that was committed. If they cannot, then it will be understood by the court as if it had no outcome on the crime committed, and the defendant will be charged severely with no reduced verdict on their sentence. This reflects the criminal justice view that the behavior of a person lacking some mental capacity or free will should not be charged according to general volitional and cognitive principles (Pasewark, Seidenzahl & Pantle, 1981). Defense for the reason of insanity is based on the assessment done by forensic mental health experts with the proper tests according to the authority. The expert only gives first-hand information that has been acquired through senses, and present testimonies regarding their thoughts and may sometimes offer opinions (Pasewark, Seidenzahl & Pantle, 1981). In the legal system, the testimony given will be able to guide the jury in deciding the way in which the case will lead. They are not allowed to judge over the issue whether the defendant is guilty or not. They only offer a clear insight of whether the defendant has the capability to control their actions at the moment or during the time that the incident occurred (Simon & Shuman, 2002). Therefore, a defendant who declares that they are not guilty at all is pleading not guilty by reason of insanity before the court. This changes the view of the judgment by the court in one mode or another in the legal system. Impaired judgment by the defendant may not be precise to any diagnosis but might be a cause of many other features that affects the frontal lobe of the brain (Jeffrey & Pasewark, 1984). If it occurs that the defendant’s judgment has been impaired due to some of the mental issues, then their actions and decisions may be affected by that. In the USA, the Supreme Court has to first affirm that the defendant is in good shape to carry on to trial by having the ability to consult rationally with the attorney and has a coherent and sensible understanding of the charges (Jeffrey & Pasewark, 1984). In the United States of America, as it is viewed in the case of Penry v. Lynaugh and Bigby v. Dretke, jury instructions have to ask about mitigating factors that regard the defendant’s mental state. If they do not, then they are taking a step against the eighth amendment rights (American Psychiatric Association, 1983). Those defendants that are found not responsible of the crimes by reason of mental insanity are taken to a psychiatric institution unless they are of temporary insanity. In the other jurisdiction, there is an alternative option of guilty but mentality III verdict (Jeffrey & Pasewark, 1984). An example that demonstrate the insanity plea is like in the case of Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986). Alvin Bernard Ford was convicted of a murder, and the court condemned him to death. Later on he suffered paranoid schizophrenia, which was concluded by forensic psychologists to be mental illness, and he was not fit to be sentenced to death due to the mental state. The court ordered him to be put into a psychological hospital for treatment (Vidmar, 2005). The testimony given by an expert witness has considerable effects on the result of the trial. The impact may differ from the size of the damages awarded in a civil suit and even liberating a person mistakenly convicted. Poor evidence that is submitted by a psychologist who is not a good forensic analyst can be damaging to an individual case. This forensic evaluation holds true to both the civil and criminal justice. In a civil case the parent that is more likely to be awarded guardianship of the young person is the one that after the evaluation is seen to be in a good mental state (Slobogin, 1998). Most of the states do vary on which of the guidelines to use in order to formulate the laws that will be followed. The rule of M’Naghten of the American law is the one that most common institutes the guidelines for the insanity plea. Regardless of how the nations and governments decide to formulate the rules and regulation, they always end up with close to a similar outcome, which is hospitalization, instead of incarceration (Simon & Shuman, 2002). The main forensic relevance of psychotic disorders is the fact that people may act on their mental experiences that are disturbing them as if they were real (Arvanites et al., 1983). These actions and activities that are committed, sometimes go against the law. It later brings about the criminal responsibility. Very significantly, psychosis may play a role in the cognitive or volitional prongs of the pertinent insanity statutes. It remains as the most common basis for an insanity plea (Arvanites et al., 1983). A number of tools and some other procedures are used by the forensic psychologists in order to find the truth and come up with conclusive results that shall be used in court for defense. If these facts are not well documented by the psychologist, it may end up destroying the life or stand of the defendant. So in this case it leaves the psychologist to be extremely thorough and keen in observing the details in order to obtain offense-related information. These procedures may include observing of the eyes, reports from third parties, police reports, clinical or medical reports et cetera (Arvanites et al., 1983). The assessment of the mental state of a defendant requires careful coordination of certain sources of information. These are like reports of the defendant, accounts by eye witnesses, police observation and treatment records (Melton, 2007). These hypotheses are formulated, evaluated, and the results help in the determination of defendant’s MSO. All these at end form a basis for the opinions of the experts which they shall present to the attorney in court (Melton, 2007). A review that was conducted some years back in 1997 which examined 7,934 cases, revealed that only 6 incidents were the ones that were seriously challenged and only in one case was the evidence declared inadmissible. Another review by Fabian pointed out that about one out of five defendants that are brought to trial are always incompetent to stand the trials. Most of them usually suffer from psychiatric disorders (Pasewark & Pantle, 1979). It is well-known that some of the offenders, who are charged with serious offences like homicide, are likely to be referred to competency evaluation than those charges with less serious crimes. This is due to the fact of the severity that is imposed on those charges. But, on the other hand, while there may be a substantial number of incompetent defendants charged with some serious violent offences, those defendants end up spending extensive time in mental institutions that the competent ones in the correction facility (Steadman et al., 1983). According to Steadman et al. (1983), in cases like child abuses, some of the medical evidences may not be available at that time, so the behavioral symptoms are used if present by the forensic psychologist to determine the truth. Some of the examples of insanity plea brought about by mental defects are telephone scatology (302.90) a certain president of an American university was arrested for making obscene phone calls, but later was released on the basis that he suffered from Paraphilia. Sleepwalking disorder (307.46), a man was charged with murder of his wife’s parents after he took his car and drove to their home fifteen miles away and committed the act in the middle of the night. Forensic psychologist confirmed that he suffered from sleepwalking disorder, and he was acquitted (Steadman et al., 1983). A judge of New York State was charged with extortion and intimidating to take hostage the teenage daughter of his e-lover. He was later acquitted due to manifestation of advance symptoms of Clerambault-Kandinsky syndrome, which gave him irresistible Erotomania. Another case is of a juvenile girl who was charged with murder of another girl after arguing over a leather coat. The defense lawyer in Milwaukee argued on the basis that the girl was suffering from cultural psychosis which on most occasions caused her to think that her problems can only be resolved by making use of a gun (Steadman et al., 1983). Most of these cases are pointing to the fact that a certain abnormal behavior that is displayed by the defendant either before the crime or during the crime leads the attorney to question the mental state of an individual (Pasewark & Pantle, 1979). The court wants the defendant to be able to understand why they are charging them so that they can pass the verdict. If they do not, they have no right to convict them because of the eight amendments that are protecting those rights. This system has also suffered some setbacks due to some criticisms from method critics and other academic psychologists. This was brought about by the trail of Hinkley for the attempted slay of President Reagan, and he was acquitted on the reason of insanity. The public was angered by the fact of injustices that are resulting from insanity pleas (Pasewark & Pantle, 1979). Sometimes the defense psychiatrist says that the accused is insane, and the prosecuting psychiatrist says that the defendant is sane. This clearly shows how the insanity defense is being played around with no reasonable basis. The forensic diagnostic information is being misused and misunderstood. This inaccuracy has come about from the high profile cases that the media has portrayed wrongly and formed general conclusion about the system (Pasewark & Pantle, 1979). Without these misused standards, forensic mental health assessment (FMHA) shall remain to be an extremely valuable tool in evaluating the conduct of defendants for the courts at the request of the attorneys. This process of evaluation has no wrong motive to a certain society, individual or the public in general, but they are intended to only facilitate the making of better informed legal decisions that shall assist the lawyers in representing a client (Perlin et al., 1982). The best defense that comes after the assessment in the insanity plea is that the defendant did not have a state of mentality that shows an element of the crime at that time when the felony was committed. By pleading the insanity defense, the defendant accepts that they committed the crime but asserts that nonetheless not guilty due to the ill mental state (Pasewark & Pantle, 1979). The assessment of mental state in order to come up with insanity plea shall remain as a way to differentiate among offenders who are in a capacity to conform their behavior to the law as a consequence of penalty, from those other offenders who are not in a position to conform their behavior to the law despite punishment. Secondly, it shall remain as a way of ensuring that the offenders posing a risk to the public are restrained (Perlin et al., 1982). When the court decides to punish the mentally ill, then it will not be promoting the normal goal of punishment which is deterrence. Punishment should be directed only to those that choose to do wrong. Therefore, they should not be placed in rehabilitation instead taken to a medical institution for treatment. It shall be fair by the court because the mentally ill will be able to receive continually valid sentence in the right proportion to their degree of culpability. The notion of criminal justice system shall be clearly reflected (Perlin et al., 1982). There are appropriate solutions that are vital to improve the insanity defense system; the adoption of Guilty-except-for-insanity verdict and the creation of mental health sentencing board. These will ensure that the mentally ill offenders who are sentenced are sentenced appropriately, and they receive treatment necessary for their mental illness so that in the end they may return to the society as productive members. Conclusion Insanity defense is a complicated legal system due to the differences between the line of work of psychologists and the legal professionals. This is seen as the psychologist only provide testimonies and the legal personnel are the ones to ultimately come up with the verdicts. It is extremely useful if malingering is suspected because this is taken as obstruction of justice. It may be difficult for the court to determine feigning illness without the help of a forensic psychologist. This assessment provides useful information regarding necessary recommendation for sentencing purposes, parole and grants of probation. Forensic Psychology assessment of people has a lengthy history, and it has proved its sensitivity and efficiency in the detection of thought disturbance that is associated with mental problems. A skilled, disciplined forensic psychologist who is well informed about the cases and the situation at hand is in a good position of making a significant involvement to the resolution of the legal matters where the court is questioning the state of mind of the defendant. References: American Psychiatric Association. (1983). American Psychiatric Association declaration on the insanity defense. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 681-688. Arvanites, T., et al. (1983). Insanity plea, analysis of the research literature. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 9, 357–403.  Grachek, J. (2006). How recent United States supreme court case law can improve the system. Journal on the Insanity Defense in the Twenty-first Century, 81 (1), 1480-1500. Halpern, A., et al. (1984). The volitional rule, personality disorders and the insanity defense. PsycINFO, 14(2), 139-141, 145-147. Hinckley, J. (1981). The insanity defense: The public's verdict. Journal of Psychiatry and the Law, 9 (winter), 357-401. Jeffrey, R., & Pasewark, R. (1984). Altering judgment about the psychosis plea. The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 11, 29-40.  Melton, G. (2007). Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: a Handbook for Mental Health Professionals (pp. 125-165, 279-314). New York: Guilford. Pasewark, R., & Pantle, M. (1979). Insanity plea: legislators' view. American Journal of Psychiatry, 136, 222-235. Pasewark, R., Seidenzahl, D., & Pantle. (1981). Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law. Journal of Forensic Psychology, 8, 63-72. Perlin, M., et al. (1982). Insanity Defense under Siege: Legislative Assaults and Legal Rejoinders, Law Journal, 14, 397- 402. Simon, R., & Shuman, D. (2002). Retrospective assessment of mental states in litigation: predicting the past. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publication. 1-26, 76-155, 307-335. Slobogin, C. (1998). Psychiatric evidence in criminal trials: to junk or not to junk? Journal of psychiatric, 40 (1), 1-53. Steadman, H., et al. (1983). Factors associated with a triumphant insanity plea. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 401–405. Vidmar, N. (2005). Expert evidence, the adversary system, and the jury. American Journal of Public Health, 95 (1), 137-142. Read More