Insanity Defense Strategies

Insanity Defense
Insanity defense might be one of the most controversial of criminal defense strategies. It is the least used because only a few cases that are actually successful and when it is used, it tended to cause public debates. Many people become infuriated with the insanity defense because of cases like John Hinckley and Andrea Yates where they were found not guilty due to insanity, which fuel in the public’s misconception of the insanity defense. Insanity defense should not be abolished because they provide help to an accused whose suffering from mental illness, it does not have a deterrent effect on most crime, and it does not give the accused a free pass to commit a crime.
Not until the 1800s that insanity defense took a legal
position in English and American court. There are several tests used in determining a person is legally insane like the “right and wrong” test that claims that defendants are not legally responsible for their acts if they were unable to distinguish between right and wrong at the time of the crime (Gardner & Anderson, 2014). In 1843, the M’Naghten rules were created in England subsequent the murder case of Rex v. M’Naghten. M’Naghten believe that Sir Robert Peel was out to kill him, to prevent that he intends to kill Peel. Daniel M’Naghten, in error he mistook Edward Drummond for Peel and shot and kill the private secretary of Peel. In the trial, his defense was insane at the time of the crime, therefore, he should not be held responsible. The jury agreed and M’Naghten was found not guilty. The M’Naghten rule established the burden of proof that because of mental disorder defendant is incapable of knowing the scope of their actions (Chambliss, 2011). In 1954, U.S. Court adopted the Durham rule, which stated that an accused cannot be held criminally responsible for his unlawful act if it is the product of mental disease or defect. After a year after the Durham rule, the American Law Institute proposed the Model Penal Code which stated a person is held responsible if (1) they cannot distinguish between right and wrong or (2) to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law (Neville, 2010). Due to many controversial surrounding the topic of the insanity defense, five states- Idaho, Montana, Kansas, Nevada, and Utah have abolished the insanity defense.
The insanity defense is a defense arguing that the defendant should not be held responsible for their criminal act due to the suffering of mental disorder at the time of the crime. This is an affirmative defense where the defendant recognizes and acknowledges the crime but does not believe they should be held responsible. It is unfair to compare those who are suffering from a mental disorder to those who are not under the law because they cannot differentiate between right and wrong. If they were not charged with this defense, the defendant will “not be given the opportunity to obtain adequate rehabilitative treatment while serving their sentences” (Grachek, 2006). On some extreme case, this defense let the defendant get relief from the most severe sentences like the death penalty and get a more lenient sentence.
The purpose of punishment is to deter other people from committing a future crime. However, for those who suffer from mental disorder, they are beyond deterrence, beyond reasonable argument. The purpose of punishment is to protect society, but for the insane, it is best to place them in the mental institution rather than try to punish them for the crime they cannot even comprehend their action. Punishment is also for retribution but it seems ludicrous to extract vengeance against an insane defendant. Therefore, it is absurd to punish the insane, instead, the law should help the mental disorder defendant the suitable treatment needed.
The insanity defense does not give the defendant a free pass to commit a crime.
Most people have a misconception that NGRI are released after the trial but his might not be true, in some cases, the accused can avoid the death penalty if proven insane but they are likely to be sent to a mental institution and sometimes they may be held longer than if they plead guilty. The defendant must remain until they are determined no longer a threat to themselves and the society, for some cases, they may be held indefinitely. To be release the insane must gain judicial approval to be put back into the community. Some might think that to plead insanity for most crime is easy, but actually, only small amount of cases actually invoke the insanity defense and an even lesser amount was actually successful in winning. The defense is not commonly using because it is difficult to prove and require a great deal of time and money due to the long period of examination to determine insanity. The burden of proof for the insanity defense is placed on the defendant. The defendant must prove the affirmative defense by the preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was insane at the time of the offense. Many expert psychiatrists are called upon to assess the mental state of the defendant at the time of the offense (Kramer & Gagliardi, 2009). It is difficult to pretend to be insane to get away with the crimes committed. Many tests are examining the defendant state of mind to determine the
mental state at the time the offense occurs.
By the end of the 20th century, all American states had some type of insanity defense.
To this day, only five states deny the defendant of the use of insanity defense. The insanity defense has such a firm historical and moral origin that provide fairness to defendants who suffer from mental disorders. It is important that the government and the public to treat them with consideration; provide them with the treatment that suitable for the individual’s illness to make them better in hope of release them back into the community when they are no longer a threat to the public rather than to confine them in prison and let them
die.