The Insanity Defense In The Daniel M Naghten Case
Introduction: The insanity defense has been used for many years and believed to began around the 1720’s where the first formal defense was used in a court in 1724. Judge Tracy, the judge that ruled over the first case coined a term “The wild beast standard” that states “for someone to be insane he must be totally deprived of his understanding and memory, and not know what he is doing anymore than an infant, a brute, or a wild beast” (Neville, 2010, pp.3-4). After the Daniel M’Naghten case, a man who attempted to kill a prime minister due to his belief that the prime minister was conspiring against him ended up killing the secretary, there was a new rule many states began to follow. After M’Naghten was found insane by multiple experts because he was unable to know the difference of right and wrong therefore he was acquitted of all charges (Neville, 2010, p. 5) a rule was developed labeled after M’Naghten.
…show more content…
The rule states that “a defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity if, at the time of committing the act, he was laboring under such defect of reason from the disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong” (“Insanity Defense FAQs: Competency to Stand Trial”, 2014). Even with the experts proving the mental incompetency of Daniel it was up to the jury, medical unprofessionals, to determine if he was not guilty by reason of insanity. Medical experts played a big part in this specific case so why isn’t the same determination and efforts put in to each case claiming the insanity defense?
Review of Research: The history of cases that have used the insanity defense, regardless of whether or not they are lying, became more used as an excuse so individuals could get away from prison time, or just not be determined to be guilty. Due to the efforts of those who are trying to use the insanity defense this has now made three states not allow the defense, and 26 states follow the M’Naghten Rule but some ended up modifying it to include those who are suffering from an irresistible impulse (“Insanity Defense FAQs: Competency to Stand Trial”, 2014). The remaining states follow a rule they decide upon by themselves. Due to this, when people try to use the insanity defense it can be a hit or miss considering that those who make the attempt are under the rule that specific state has made and are often unsuccessful (Feurerstein, et al., 2005). The insanity plea has been used as a scapegoat, can be faked and is very difficult to prove and has very little data supporting the success of the defense because of the difference of criteria in each state. Between the years of 2003 and 2013 there were nearly 6,000 homicides that took place in New York and ruling of not guilty be reasons of insanity only happened in seven of those cases (“Insanity Defense Pros and Cons List,” 2015). Contrary to popular belief, the defense isn’t used as often as it is believed to be. Ruth Johnson states in her article that “while this lesson is true, it does not change the fact that sometimes the insanity defense is successful, and for whatever reason, it leaves many people feeling uneasy.” The term insanity is a “legal concept” which is understandable because even if a person is medically declared mentally insane, the jurors are still the ones that decide whether or not the defendant is going to be found not guilty by reasons of insanity, not a doctor (Johnson, 2014, p. 1). It is even stated by Ames Robey “the psychiatrist does not make the decision as to the competency of an individual. His role is solely that of an advisor of the court. The criteria to determine whether or not the insanity is present are extremely vague and are basic questions and understandings.
They have to understand the charges brought against them, the consequences that could potentially be suffered if there is a conviction, must also have some understanding of the procedures in the courtroom and those who are apart of it. The defendant should also have an “underlying bases for any diagnoses” meaning a mental impairment (Gaskell). Stated in the “Insanity Defense Pros and Cons List” article one of the cons mentioned is that if there is not a previous record of any type of mental disease then the jury may have a hard time believing the insanity plea. If the defendant is found not guilty they are sent to mental health institutions and will stay there until they are thought to be safe to leave the facility. If there is a claim of insanity but they are still found guilty they will go to prison and most will still receive mental health help is will just not be as good of quality, if they get any (Reisner, Piel, & Makey,
2013).
Recommendation:
Although some people believe that they can claim insanity to have a way of avoiding prison or the other consequences of their crimes it is not that easy and success is not guaranteed. Julie Grachek states in her article that the criteria for determining whether or not a person is mentally competent is very vague and that has been proven by multiple other sources. But why would this be surprising when the determination of the guiltiness of a person is not in the hands of a medical expert? Mental competency evaluators or psychiatrist don’t have a voice in the verdict but if they did the criteria would be more defined and understood. It is easy to fool someone who is not an expert in the topic therefore when a case is filing for an insanity plea the efforts of medical professionals should play a bigger part in the case than a jury. Like stated previously, the competency of a defendant is a legal term, not a medical one but if there was a better criteria to test the defendants over then the numbers of those who falsely claim insanity would be revealed and reduce even more than it already has.
The rule states that “a defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity if, at the time of committing the act, he was laboring under such defect of reason from the disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong” (“Insanity Defense FAQs: Competency to Stand Trial”, 2014). Even with the experts proving the mental incompetency of Daniel it was up to the jury, medical unprofessionals, to determine if he was not guilty by reason of insanity. Medical experts played a big part in this specific case so why isn’t the same determination and efforts put in to each case claiming the insanity defense?
Review of Research: The history of cases that have used the insanity defense, regardless of whether or not they are lying, became more used as an excuse so individuals could get away from prison time, or just not be determined to be guilty. Due to the efforts of those who are trying to use the insanity defense this has now made three states not allow the defense, and 26 states follow the M’Naghten Rule but some ended up modifying it to include those who are suffering from an irresistible impulse (“Insanity Defense FAQs: Competency to Stand Trial”, 2014). The remaining states follow a rule they decide upon by themselves. Due to this, when people try to use the insanity defense it can be a hit or miss considering that those who make the attempt are under the rule that specific state has made and are often unsuccessful (Feurerstein, et al., 2005). The insanity plea has been used as a scapegoat, can be faked and is very difficult to prove and has very little data supporting the success of the defense because of the difference of criteria in each state. Between the years of 2003 and 2013 there were nearly 6,000 homicides that took place in New York and ruling of not guilty be reasons of insanity only happened in seven of those cases (“Insanity Defense Pros and Cons List,” 2015). Contrary to popular belief, the defense isn’t used as often as it is believed to be. Ruth Johnson states in her article that “while this lesson is true, it does not change the fact that sometimes the insanity defense is successful, and for whatever reason, it leaves many people feeling uneasy.” The term insanity is a “legal concept” which is understandable because even if a person is medically declared mentally insane, the jurors are still the ones that decide whether or not the defendant is going to be found not guilty by reasons of insanity, not a doctor (Johnson, 2014, p. 1). It is even stated by Ames Robey “the psychiatrist does not make the decision as to the competency of an individual. His role is solely that of an advisor of the court. The criteria to determine whether or not the insanity is present are extremely vague and are basic questions and understandings.
They have to understand the charges brought against them, the consequences that could potentially be suffered if there is a conviction, must also have some understanding of the procedures in the courtroom and those who are apart of it. The defendant should also have an “underlying bases for any diagnoses” meaning a mental impairment (Gaskell). Stated in the “Insanity Defense Pros and Cons List” article one of the cons mentioned is that if there is not a previous record of any type of mental disease then the jury may have a hard time believing the insanity plea. If the defendant is found not guilty they are sent to mental health institutions and will stay there until they are thought to be safe to leave the facility. If there is a claim of insanity but they are still found guilty they will go to prison and most will still receive mental health help is will just not be as good of quality, if they get any (Reisner, Piel, & Makey,
2013).
Recommendation:
Although some people believe that they can claim insanity to have a way of avoiding prison or the other consequences of their crimes it is not that easy and success is not guaranteed. Julie Grachek states in her article that the criteria for determining whether or not a person is mentally competent is very vague and that has been proven by multiple other sources. But why would this be surprising when the determination of the guiltiness of a person is not in the hands of a medical expert? Mental competency evaluators or psychiatrist don’t have a voice in the verdict but if they did the criteria would be more defined and understood. It is easy to fool someone who is not an expert in the topic therefore when a case is filing for an insanity plea the efforts of medical professionals should play a bigger part in the case than a jury. Like stated previously, the competency of a defendant is a legal term, not a medical one but if there was a better criteria to test the defendants over then the numbers of those who falsely claim insanity would be revealed and reduce even more than it already has.