Insanity Plea Condition of Mind - Term Paper Example

Insanity plea Introduction Though it is an old saying that there is a thin line between insanity and genius, it is still a fact. Insanity and geniusare the two conditions of mind and it is through insanity that the machinations of a genius can be understood. A genius is full of overflowing ideas and the memories stirred in his brain are countless. He stumbles upon the combinations and affinities in facts, tones and colors that are beyond the comprehension of an ordinary mind. This is the way the madman’s mind also operates. This goes to show that both madman and genius share in common the excessive stimulation, the depression or excitability of certain parts of their brain. The difference is the question of area of the brain to which vitiated blood supply flows. The nerve cells and fibres are super-sensitive. Thus, genius often merges into insanity and insane into genius. Both are influenced by functional disorders. The law of nature seems to be that excessive activity in one part of the brain results in depression in another part of the brain. Similarly, depression in one part of the brain is reflected as excessive activity in another part. This ultimately results in loss of healthy functioning of either sensory or motor apparatus or the several channels which regulate the body growth and nutrition. Thus genius, insanity, idiocy, acrofula, rickets, gout, consumption and similar neuropathic disorders are the manifestations of the common evil called instability or disequilibrium in the nervous system (Nisbet, 2005, p55). Genius is a freak of nature and his faculties have developed one-sidedly resulting in one organ predominating the others. Seneca has said that there can be no genius without a touch of madness (Besser, 1969, p 73). With the above facts, it would become clear that a genius is conscious of his actions whereas the insane person may no be so. The genius can therefore act deceptively like insane. And with the deceptive insanity, he is apt to commit wrongs and plead insanity. M’Naghten Rule The defense of insanity has its roots in the 1843 case of Daniel M’Naghten after whose name insanity defense rule came to known. Daniel M’Naghten who attempted to kill the then prime minister of Britain and was acquitted as not guilty as he was insane at the time. But due to the criticisms against the ruling, a strict definition of insanity was formulated and called as the M’Naghten Rule according to which a person cannot be called legally insane unless he is incapable of appreciating his surroundings. This rule which was in force until 1950s until the decision in Durham v United States which declared that one is not capable of committing a crime but for his mental disease or defect. The Durham standard also gave rise to lot of criticisms as it was broader than M’Naghten rule in concept and more lenient. Later, the Model Penal Code of America compromised between the above said rules and declared that a person capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong is not insane. This was in vogue until 1981 when the person John Hinckley who attempted to kill the then President Ronald Regan was acquitted amidst widespread protests among the public. This prompted the law makers to go back to the strict M’Naghten rule (Montaldo, n.d). Malingering The above said pretension of being insane is called malingering deliberately to avoid legal sanctions or obtain monetary gains. It is not necessary that a genius alone can do this malingering. It can happen even in a mentally disordered person who may try to exaggerate his mental condition. Detection of malingering in a person can be difficult. Symptoms exhibited by a person suspected of malingering can be compared with those people who really have mental illness. But if the malinger happens to exhibit the same symptoms of a mentally diseased person, detection of malingering can be difficult. In such cases, reasons for motivation of producing such symptoms should be ascertained. Kenneth Bianchi the serial killer who claimed to suffer from multiple personality disorder was trapped by making him repeat while in hypnosis what he was suggested during his wake state in order to prove his innocence. Had he been really insane, he would not reenacted in hypnosis what he was advised in the wake state. In another instance, the defendant may give incorrect answers, as if he is mentally less competent. It can be confirmed if he gives his answers at a higher rate on easier questions than on the more difficult ones when he actually does not know correct or incorrect answers. A comparison of current symptoms with the symptoms recorded in the past would expose discrepancies. The tests for evaluation of malingering are Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2, the Validity Indicator Profile, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent and the test of Memory Malingering. But these tests are not highly accurate in their detection. It has been found in a survey that 20 to 25 % of the defenders resort to malingering and this has prompted many psychologists to receive training on detection (Fersch, 2005, p 21-22). Bianchi case Coming back to Bianchi, his malingering was ultimately proved and his case became an important landmark in the justice system to be vigilant for malingering. Bianchi was not insane and did not suffer from multiple personality disorder. He had to drop his insanity plea and accept plea bargain. He testified against his cousin Angelo Buono who was his accomplice and in return Bianchi was given a life sentence instead of death penalty. His killing spree which began in October 1977 ended up in nine murders and the trials lasted until 1982. This case also resulted in Dr Michael Welmer developing a depravity scale for evaluation of evilness of criminals. This scale available online at www.depravityscale.org, will be of use in cases of heinous crimes. Malingering, thus, becomes an issue in every trial and the forensic psychologists are expected to evaluate the defendants who are motivated to lie unlike real patients. For the purpose, they should not only diagnose the defendant’s symptoms but also decide whether the symptoms are true or false. Psychologists are also called to testify for legal insanity of the defendants (Fersch, 2005, p 130-131). John Wayne Gacy’s case of 1980 John Wayne was sentenced to death though throughout the trial process, his actions appeared somewhat abnormal. His acts though were beyond normal behavior, they themselves could not justify insanity plea. His case has shown that one could not escape culpability merely because of committing an insane act. This case set a precedent for the scope of insanity defense to excuse grave crimes. The jury has shown that extreme cases cannot be let off simply because of defendant’s questionable mental capacity. Otherwise, verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) would open up flood gates for insanity pleas for cases of even extreme severity (Fersch, 2005, p 162). Jeffrey Dahmer Not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) was advanced by the defenders of Jeffrey Dahmer who killed seventeen young men from 1978 to 1991. The young men had been mostly homosexuals who would be lured into his apartment promising money for posing nude in photographs. But Dahmer gave them drinks mixed with drug Halcion. As Dahmer could get erection only when the partner was unconscious, he strangled his victims when they fell unconscious after the drinks and had sex with the dead and exposed body parts. He used to have sex with the same dead bodies repeatedly keeping them for a number of days. He boiled their skulls and ate their body parts believing that they would go inside him and become walking zombies. He did all this in order to get erection and masturbate. He was charged with fifteen murders and he pleaded NGRI. The defense was that he suffered from necrophilia with which he could not control his behavior. When the police found that he had lied to them about a 14 year old boy wandering naked on the street as if he was a nineteen year old and that he was his guest. Afterwards, he had strangled the boy and had sex with his corpse. This act convinced the court as well as experts that Dahmer’s behavior could not be the behavior of a man with uncontrollable impulse. Hence his sanity was confirmed by 12 lay people apart from the experts. It was decided that he was evil and not just bad. NGRI can be used only when the defendant does not know what he is doing. Secondly, the NGRI can be invoked only when he has a mental illness which causes him to lose control of his impulses (Reznek, p 1-15). Opinions of the four associations American Psychological Association wants to retain the insanity plea and maintains that regardless of guilty or innocent mind, the mentally impaired defendants need to be followed up after the verdict so that they do not pose a threat to themselves or others. It also views seriously the practice of releasing the individuals after haphazard treatment. The association is mainly interested in providing empirical research which should be the basis for assisting judges and juries to make legal, scientific and moral decisions paving way for appropriate treatment for mentally impaired offenders. It is for further research in the area. It, however, does not support the guilty but would like to replace the not guilty defense by the mentally ill defense (Fersch, 2005, p 10). American Psychiatric Association While the psychiatric association also wants to retain the insanity defense without endorsing the guilty, it has introduced the idea of irresistible impulse test. It neither wants to continue the plea of mental illness for heuristic reasons nor would approve psychiatric testimony for ultimate decision on sanity or insanity (Fersch, 2005, p 11). On other hand, the American Medical Association wants to discontinue special defense of insanity which fewer states like Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Kansas, Montana have decided to abolish and replace it for acquittal on the ground of the “mens rea” statute. The association also supports the stand that mental illness can be a mitigating factor by which the hospitalization should be determined to carry out the sentence (Fersch, 2005, p 12). Lastly, the American Bar Association though it advocated a tightened insanity defense following the Hinckley trial, it later approved the Standard 7-6-2 that enabled the defendants to avoid the tightened insanity defense so that expert testimony and other evidence may or may not provide that defendant had the necessary mental state for the crime charged (Fersch, 2005, p 12). Psychological aspects of insanity plea In the first place, the term insanity is a legal concept and not a psychological one as there is no psychological norm to decide on insanity. Insanity also does not denote mental illness. As such, a person who is seriously or minimally ill cannot be named insane. Hence, a person who is not insane but with mental illness can be partially or fully responsible for his criminal acts. Thus, the punishment for manslaughter instead of murder and the verdict of guilty but mentally ill are the instances of such variations. Further, it is also possible for a person to be called insane by a jury even though he is not mentally ill. For instance, if a person takes a drug involuntarily and that act impairs his judgment, it can be called an act of insanity even though there is no history of mental illness (Fersch, 2005, p 12). Mental illness has been defined variously without a universally accepted definition. However, medical literature shows two broad categorization of the condition. The first one is a broad-based using the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental Disorders and is applied to evaluate and testify as experts for differentiating between serious and less serious mental illnesses. The second one treats mental illness as brain disorders characterized by biological markers, heritability and lesions. This biological basis of mental illness is not used in the legal settings much. American Psychiatric Association’s interpretation treats a person as legally insane if he is unable to understand the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of offense because of his mental disease or mental retardation. Thus, as per the associations, only severe abnormal mental conditions like schizophrenia would fall within the ambit of insanity defense. Thus, the association has excluded disorders arising out of voluntary ingestion of alcohol or other psychoactive substances and it does not also support the irresistible impulse test for insanity. Whether or not, insanity is the same as psychosis, the explanation is while the former is a legal concept, the latter is the psychiatric concept. Psychosis is a state of mind when reality appears distorted to the person concerned. It can be accompanied by hallucinations, personality changes, disorganized thinking and delusional beliefs. Thus, an insane person can experience psychosis and psychosis does not presuppose legal insanity. And insanity is not necessarily to be accompanied by psychosis. Psychopathology which is a synonym for metal disease can also be called psychosis (Fersch, 2005, p 13-15). The question is how serious the mental disorder must be to justify legally as the basis for insanity defense. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders have several diagnoses for insanity defense. These diagnoses aid in drawing dividing lines between mental disorders which can be legitimately called cases of insanity and other conditions that may seek to reduce an individual’s culpability or may not impact the degree of culpability at all. As such, the most serious conditions like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are good candidates for insanity which mental health experts also agree to since schizophrenia have the potential for hallucinations and delusions leading to loss of touch with reality and manic-depressive illness now known as bi-polar disorder also has similar psychotic features. Similarly, multiple personality disorder now known as disassociative identity disorder is also a good candidate for the plea of insanity, if such a disorder really exists. Other lesser ones such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, obsessive compulsory disorder, and post traumatic stress disorder are less acceptable for insanity defense. Least acceptable or the ones not at all qualifying and in fact rejected by the American Psychiatric Association are antisocial personality disorder which characterizes people formerly labeled as psychopaths or sociopaths and conduct disorder. While those addicted to substance abuse voluntarily cannot claim insanity defense, those who have been ingested with a substance involuntarily or against their will, can put forth insanity defense (Fersch, 2005, p 15). Conclusion In the beginning of this paper, it has been said that the borders between insanity and genius is blurred. It is urged that in any insanity plea, a genius should not be allowed to escape punishment. Under the garb of insanity, a genius is likely to be more harmful to the society than an insane person. The scheming talent of a genius should therefore be carefully monitored and nipped at the bud itself. However, a fake genius can be spotted by the various differential tests prescribed by the psychiatric association as described above. And because of this, insanity pleas have been on the declining trend. A genius, therefore, can not easily escape from punishment for his crime under the pretext of insanity. Various questioning and observational methods employed by an alert psychological and psychiatry experts can easily identify the lurking genius in a fake insane person. It should be mentioned that insanity plea need not be necessarily confined to crimes like murders alone. White collar criminals can also advance the insanity plea. Works cited Besser Gretchen R. Balzac’s Concept of Genius. Geneva, Librairie Droz, 1969. Print Fersch Ellsworth L, Thinking about insanity Defense, Lincoln, NE, i Universe 2005. Print. Montaldo Charles. The Insanity Defense, http://crime.about.com/od/issues/a/insanity.htm, n.d, Web. 11 February 2010. . Nisbet John, The Insanity of Genius and the General Inequality of Human Faculty, Whitefish, MT, Kessinger Publishing, 2005. Reznek Lawrie, Evil or ill? justifying the insanity defence, Routledge, 1997 Read More