Seeking Justice: Reimagining the Insanity Defense
Is it just to acquit someone who murders their spouse but has a degree of psychosis that prevents them from understanding the wrongs of doing so? This question is the premise of the insanity defense, a legal defense in which a defendant admits to a crime, but pleads not guilty on the basis of their mental condition. [1] The M’Naghten case (1843) established the first definition of the insanity defense. English judges held that the defendant was justly not guilty because his mental defects prevented him from telling the difference between right and wrong. [2] Present-day insanity defense laws are largely products of the narrowing reforms that occurred in the 1980s after John Hinckley’s—President Reagan’s attempted murderer—acquittal by reason of insanity. However, the tightening of these laws based on a single controversial case disregards the overall importance and impact of the defense for mentally ill defendants. As such, states and federal governments should reform insanity defense practices to enable more frequent and just use.
Today, defense lawyers utilize three main forms of the insanity defense: The M’Naghten defense, the Irresistible Impulse Defense, and the Substantial Capacity Defense. [3] Each approach consists of two necessary conditions, one of which is that the defendant must be suffering from a mental defect or disease. To fulfill the M’Naghten defense’s second condition, the mental defect must have caused the defendant to “not know either the nature and quality of the criminal act or that the act was wrong”. [4] The Irresistible Impulse defense supplements the M’Naghten defense by adding a third alternative — no volition — for its second condition. If the defendant “cannot control his or her conduct because of the mental defect or disease”, the second condition for insanity is satisfied. [5] Lastly, the Substantial Capacity Defense’s second condition requires that the defendant lacked “substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct” at the time of the act. [6] The need for only substantial, not complete, capacity makes this defense the easiest to prove. Post-reform, M’Naghten defense has been the most widely accepted under state laws because it is the most difficult to prove. Laws in different jurisdictions will frequently reject the Substantial Capacity defense, which was used in the Hinckley case.
Before presenting a moral argument, it is important to address public misconceptions about the defense. A study conducted in 1982 after the Hinckley case demonstrated that 87% percent of the public saw it as a loophole for defendants to escape punishment. [7] However, only about 1% of criminal defendants today plead insanity, and the defense is only successful in about 30 of those cases per year. [8] Furthermore, the majority of the study respondents (74%) wanted Hickley to have some form of mental health treatment included in Hinckley’s verdict. Post acquittal by reason of insanity, defendants are institutionalized in treatment centers, primarily for spans of years or life, aligning with the public’s desire. Yet this same study showed that over 50% of respondents disagreed with the not guilty verdict Hinckley case. [9] In cases where defendants are found guilty but are assigned mental health treatment in prison, the treatment rarely works, reflecting a contradiction in the public's desire for imprisonment and also treatment. [10]
Treating mental illness is the crux of why the insanity defense should continue to be used. All individuals deserve the opportunity to live a life not tainted by mental defects that interfere with their livelihood and perception of reality. The link between mental illness and crime is evident: 10% of homicides are committed by those with untreated psychotic disorders. [11] If individuals with psychotic disorders were given treatment, they may be able to live a life without recidivating. It is important to recognize that not all cases of mental illness are treatable, but most are—only 15% of those treated for schizophrenia see little improvement in their condition ten years after diagnosis. [12] The result of unsuccessful treatment is the continuance of institutionalization. But if an individual can be released from treatment after comprehensive psychological analysis that determines recidivism is unlikely, that opportunity is morally deserved. Treatment addresses the desire to both prevent further crime and maintain public safety by ensuring only those who are mentally stable enough to be released are while also providing individuals with a basic human right.
Lack of bad intention is the other primary reason the insanity defense is crucial to a just legal system. Many see imprisonment as punishment for heinous crimes. Yet the precedent of using intention to determine the degree of punishment already exists (separating killing into different degrees of murder and manslaughter, for example). Similar to how a drunk driver does not intend anyone, those with psychosis typically do not intend to baselessly hurt anyone. Schizophrenics, for example, commonly experience hallucinations, voices, and delusions, which can result in them committing criminal acts because they fear for their own life. For example, in his account of schizophrenia, Mark Vonnegut said, “I have a fuzzy recollection of walking up to some doctor-looking person and being totally absorbed by his gold tie clip. I suspected it was the button to end the world so I didn’t touch it.” [13] The age-old principle of considering intention in justice should be applied to the insanity defense, just as it is in other aspects of the legal system.
In order to actualize these concepts, we can take a look at past usages of the insanity defense and the morality of their outcomes. In People v. Robin (1994), the impact of mental health treatment is clear. Lee Robin was charged for the 1998 murders of his wife and daughter. His past, beginning in college, had been characterized by depression, suicidality, paranoia, and delusions. His parents and siblings had suffered from schizoaffective disorder and psychosis. Robin previously stated that he did not want to end up hurting his wife and daughter and that they should be taken away from him, yet his request was ignored. [14] He was found legally insane at the time of the killings and was institutionalized at the Elgin Mental Health Center. [15] Robin’s genetic disposition to paranoia and psychosis and lack of appropriate treatment prior to the murders was not in his control. Twelve years of treatment and medication later, he was granted conditional including terms ensuring his stability, and he was never charged with another crime. [16] Though devastating, this case does show that treatment can lower the chance of recidivism, and provide decently-intentioned members of society suffering from mental illness with their right to a chance at life.
But the insanity defense does not work in situations where the crimes are beyond any atonement. In People v. Gacy (1984), serial killer and sex offender John Wayne Gacy plead insane after committing over 30 assaults and murders. Although psychiatrists determined him to be a paranoid schizophrenic, his level of sociopathy and the degree of crimes he had committed resulted in a jury finding him guilty regardless. [17] The insanity defense does not successfully function as a loophole for every mentally ill person to escape serving punishment and being subjected to justice.
In order to minimize misconceptions about the insanity defense and increase its accessibility for those with mental illness, I propose the following: (1) Increased access to low-cost psychiatric evaluations to be used in court. Allowing those with untreated mental health issues to gain appropriate diagnoses will increase the opportunities for the mentally ill for the defense to be used accurately while also providing the public with scientific reinforcements upholding the validity of the defense; (2) Required post-acquittal clinical institutionalization focused on rehabilitation. Requiring institutionalization [although this occurs in almost every case] for any person found not guilty by reason of insanity will debunk myths about lack of safety resulting from these acquittals. A focus on rehabilitation emphasizes the human rights argument for the insanity defense: once untreated psychotic disorders become treated, to a degree, some people will be enabled to experience life without high risk of recidivism; and (3) Recommendation for states to comply with the same insanity defense laws and practices as the federal government. The varied usage and unclear terms of the insanity defense today add to the confusion regarding the insanity defense’s purpose.
With such proposals taken into account, the insanity defense can hopefully become a tool used in specific cases where well-intentioned, mentally diseased defendants can gain a chance at rehabilitating into life while mitigating safety risks to the public.
References
“Insanity Defense,” Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute.
Jerry Norton, “Insanity | Law,” Encyclopedia Britannica.
University of Minnesota Libraries, “6.1 The Insanity Defense,” Criminal Law, December 17, 2015.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Valerie Hans and Dan Slater, “John Hinckley, Jr. and the Insanity Defense: The Public’s Verdict,” Cornell Law Faculty Publications, July 1, 1983.
“Insanity Defense in Criminal Cases,” Justia, April 25, 2018.
Hans and Slater, “John Hinckley, Jr. and the Insanity Defense: The Public’s Verdict”.
James Hooper, M.D., “The Insanity Defense: History and Problems,” Saint Louis University Public Law Review 25, no. 2 (January 1, 2006).
JM Dawson and PA Langan, “Murder in Families | Office of Justice Programs,” July 1994.
Casarella, Jennifer “Schizophrenia Prognosis,” WebMD, January 21, 2021.
“17 Quotes About Living with Schizophrenia,” Psych Central, May 28, 2021.
“PEOPLE v. ROBIN | 638 N.E.2d 666 (1994) | E2d66611262,” Leagle.
Ibid.
Ibid.
People v. Gacy, 103 Ill. 2d 1 (1984)