Category: Insanity Defense

Insanity is commonly defined as the state of being seriously mentally ill. But does that exempt people from punishment for crimes they committed? Insanity pleas are rarely used, and when they are, they have an extremely low success rate. How is one deemed insane? What are the criteria for an insanity plea? These issues have been and continue to be determined by state lawmakers and precedent-setting court cases. One possible outlet for this determination is the use of brain scans. If someone can be deemed as actually insane or not, it can help mentally ill people receive proper care, and in cases where the death penalty is used, perhaps save a life.

Although the insanity plea has been around since the 18th century, actually determining the validity of the plea has only come around in the last hundred years. In 18th-century England, a test called the ‘wild beast test’ was used to determine insanity. It was named this because it determined if a person had any understanding or memory of their crime, akin to a wild beast. This test, among others, was administered by psychiatrists to have a professional opinion on whether someone is truly insane or not. In 1843, the McNaughton rules were formed after Daniel McNaughton shot and killed the Prime Minister’s secretary but was acquitted because of insanity. Due to the staggering amount of public backlash, parliament came up with a more clearly defined qualification for insanity, saying that there was a presumption of sanity unless the defense proved at the time of committing the act the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing. America has a much more vague standard, with Ronald Reagan saying in 1984 that the defendant is not responsible if he was unable to appreciate the criminality of his conduct. Although the insanity plea was clearly laid out in 1984, the first use of brain scans in an insanity defense wasn’t for another eight years.

The first known use of brain scans as evidence was in 1992, with Herbert Weinstein as the defendant. Weinstein had strangled his wife and then pushed her body out of a window to make her death look like a suicide. Defense attorneys had PET scans that revealed an arachnoid cyst in the frontal-temporal region of Weinstein’s brain, which ‘affected his ability to reason’ (Rojas-Burke, 13N). Brain scans being considered evidence, in this case, were met with mixed feelings. Some said that the use of PET scans as evidence has no scientific backing, while others, though, said that it was a step forward in the newly coined (at the time) ‘neurological defense’. The scans, along with the opinion of a psychiatrist, argued that “Weinstein’s cognitive faculties were so impaired that he lacked the capacity to appreciate the consequences of his actions or know that his actions were wrong” (Rojas-Burke, 13N). Although this was a breakthrough case for the use of brain scans, Weinstein ended up pleading guilty to manslaughter for a reduced sentence. Daniel Martell, a forensic psychologist, testified in Weinstein’s case and then opened a consulting business called Forensic Neuroscience because he was in such high demand. Martell has been involved in hundreds of criminal and civil cases, as part of both the defense and the prosecution. Though he remains skeptical of the worth of brain scans, Martell doesn’t deny how they have revolutionized the law.

Modern neuroscience has changed the minds of juries so that criminals receive life in prison instead of death. Brain scans also could have helped John Hinckley Jr., the man who attempted to assassinate President Reagan. Criminal evidence has come a long way to include brain scans, evidenced by the development of the insanity defense throughout history and cases where brain scans have been used as evidence. But negatives include the cost, the time added to a trial, and the fact that it could be considered a rights infringement. Although brain scans are helpful, they can increase the costs of an already expensive trial. A normal trial can cost anywhere from $100 to $400 an hour for a criminal defense lawyer. With cases being 4 or 5 days, and some taking up to 6 months, the legal fees can range from a few thousand to a few hundred thousand. Add on the few thousand dollars that a brain scan costs, which ranges from $1000 to $5000, depending on where you live, the debt could be crippling to some lower-income families. Though some of the cost might be covered by insurance, a large sum is still owed. If the judge or jury declares that a brain scan is necessary, it adds time to what might already be a lengthy trial. Trials can take anywhere from a few days to a few months, depending on the severity of the case. The trial is most likely severe and therefore has been going on for a while if a brain scan has been deemed necessary. In the case of Herbert Weinstein, the case lasted four months before a verdict was reached. Although brain scans probably take less time when the subject is in police custody, it can still take anywhere from a few hours to a few days to determine if the subject is actually insane or not. This also does not account for any surprises that may pop up when the brain scans are inspected. There is also the possibility of court-ordered brain scans being considered a rights infringement. In 2013, a Maryland court ruled in favor of DNA collection upon arrest, saying that it was of ‘legitimate government interest’ because it could help determine the criminal history of the individual. There is justifiable concern that this could be broadened to include brain scans. Similar to DNA collection being used to determine past criminal history, brain scans could be used to predict future criminal activity. This could result in discriminatory treatment of an individual. This crime prediction fueled discrimination could take the form of being denied housing, insurance, or even employment.

Concerns over the cost, length of the trial, and debate over whether or not a brain scan is a rights infringement are pertinent. Although those concerns are valid, they are outweighed by the positives, such as how brain scans can help people who are actually ill receive proper care, prevent the death penalty from being carried out, and determine if jurors are biased. Using brain scans to determine if someone is actually insane or not helps people who are actually mentally ill receive proper care. Per a 2000 estimation, the National Institute of Mental Health said that 42 percent of people with ‘severe mental illnesses’ go untreated. Harvard Health also says that an extremely small portion of those actually commit crimes. This contributes to the small percentage of people who claim insanity in criminal cases. Of those people who do claim insanity, using brain scans to validate the claim weeds out the people who aren’t actually ill, as well as getting people who are actually ill the care that they need instead of sending them to prison where they will be worse off. If the death penalty is on the table as a possible punishment, determining if a person is actually insane can save a life. In 40 years, 8,466 people were sentenced to death. Of those 8,466 people, 4,338 are either still on death row or have been executed. Insane people are not at all responsible for the crimes they’ve committed, whether it be because they can’t remember committing it or because they can’t fully appreciate the consequences of their actions. If they die, it is killing a technically innocent man, whether he committed the crime or not. Using brain scans can determine if a person is responsible or not and can help people who are coming to justice, and those who are not, not to be punished. Brain scans can also determine bias in jurors, making for a more fair jury to determine guilt or not. Bias in jurors hinders true justice, and eliminating that bias comes in the form of finding jurors that are unbiased toward the specific case. Eliminating such bias can come in the form of using brain scans on potential jurors. Certain parts of the brain light up when someone recognizes a person or something that they have heard. This can be used to see if someone has seen or heard of the case before and therefore has already determined what they think the verdict should be. This poses an issue because the juror hasn’t heard all the evidence in the case.

Brain scans can be positive or negative depending on how the information gathered is used. The positives of finding proper care and treatment of mentally ill individuals, saving convicted criminals from the death penalty, and eliminating juror bias outweigh the negatives of rights infringement, trial costs, and trial length. The scope of brain scan usage will be a contentious issue as the legal system continues to be inundated with trials and criminal sentencing. This issue will be interesting to watch as lawyers and judges will decide this very important issue with precedent-setting cases in each state.

In unlawful examination, the insanity defenses refer to the probable defenses by justification, a confirmatory refutation in which suspects squabble that they ought not to be termed as illegitimately accountable for failing to obey the regulation since they were lawfully insane during the period of the charge of suspected offences. A suspect trying such a refutation will mostly be needed to go through a mental evaluation before any step is undertaken. The insanity defense is dependent on assessments carried out by forensic expertise who confirms that the suspect was not able to differentiate between the correct and incorrect thing to do during the time of the crime.

The video entitled a crime of insanity is a documentary which is a detailed evaluation of a case of man called Ralph Tortorici. This Video raises bigger queries on the lawful system and the methods it utilize in dealing with mentally sick offenders. In this video, Ralph, a psychology learner in the year 1994 entered into a classroom while armed with a knife and a rifle and stated that he wanted to take the student captive. For about three hours he shouted on how microchips had been fixed or implanted into his penis and head. Many learners rushed towards him and he dangerously wounded one the student prior to him being arrested. Later Ralph was interviewed with several people that included his father, lawyer, brother and prosecutor and other individuals who were involved in the offense. It was clear to everybody that Ralph was suffering from a mental disorder but it was not apparent how the courts could handle his case. Therefore, Cheryl Coleman, who was a prosecutor wanted to get into an appeal because Ralph was suffering from paranoid schizophrenic, a mental disorder. However, her immediate boss Attorney Lawrence refused and stated that they did not wanted to be seen of accommodating an individual that the district attorney felt ought to have been jailed and not get admitted in a hospital. Therefore, it is clear that lawyers neither think right nor wrong but all they struggle with is how to win a case and they can do or implement any strategy in order to win (Rhodes 1-2).

The standard for arguing a suspect is not accountable for an offence because the person is insane has altered from strict instructions to a more compassionate explanation or guidelines. Though the description of lawful insanity is different in various states, generally an individual is regarded as insane and he or she is not accountable for criminal offences if, during the period of crime, due to serious mental illness or disorder, the person was not able to acknowledge the status and excellence or the wrongfulness of his or her conducts.

There are several diverse explanations of the term insane and several diverse concepts of the way to deal with a person who is insane. The severe standard concerning insanity cases or refutation was utilized up to the year 1950. In the case of Durham, the court declared that an individual was lawful insane if he or she could not have performed the offence action but for the existence of a mental disorder or illness. Therefore, the Durham standard states that guilty though mentally sick. This standard was a more compassionate explanation for the insanity case. Although the Durham standard is a more compassionate guideline of dealing with insanity defenses, others have eliminated the defense. Therefore, since the Durham standard still declares the mentally ill individuals guilty, the New Hampshire should adopt the Durham standard of guilty but mentally ill statute. The reason why New Hampshire need not to eliminate the death penalty completely for the insanity defense its because during the period of such action due to mental disorder, the individual is not in a position to acknowledge the criminality of her or his action or to verify his or her action to the standards of the regulations. Therefore, abolishment will lead to tractability to the psychosis defense, by avoiding the standards that a suspect who comprehends the distinction between correct and incorrect is thus not lawful insane (Montaldo par. 1-6).

Therefore, the standard of Durham is appropriate since some individuals argue that insanity is a mythological creation that is formed in order to alleviate those who break the rules from criminal roles. In addition, it ought to known that there has been no authoritative research about the proportion of individuals suffering from mental disorder who have had contact with the authority that seem to look like criminal suspects, are imprisoned, or are under society management. Moreover, the extent of this matter is different in various jurisdictions. Consequently, advocates need to depend more on the statistics that have been gathered by regional and state government organization.

In conclusion, currently the standard for confirming lawful insanity is different in various states, but most of the jurisdictions have gone back or have adopted a more strict explanation of the definition of insanity defense. Therefore, the New Hampshire should adopt the Durham standard that states guilty but mentally ill statute.

Works Cited

Montaldo, Charles. Standard for Legal Insanity Has Shifted. The Insanity Defense. 2009. Web.

Rhodes, Steve. A crime of Insanity. 2002. Web.

The article investigates an insanity defense, it provides a closer look at its history and details. An insanity defense is defined as a “plea that defendants are not guilty because they lacked the mental capacity” and cannot be responsible for their actions, or they cannot control their behavior (Martin, 1998, para. 5). Made the law in the 1840s, this plea refers to various crimes and is not used only in murder cases. This standard checks the morality of a system and allows judiciaries to decide that some criminal defendants cannot be sentenced for their malefactions as they do not understand their actions. Supported by the majority of the United States, an insanity defense is ultimately unsuccessful as a highly insignificant number of defendants were acquitted due to insanity (Martin, 1998). Although most acquitted defendants suffer from severe mental diseases, for instance, schizophrenia, there are multiple cases when offenders try to fake insanity to avoid a prison sentence.

However, those defendants who escape imprisonment due to legally approved insanity are typically committed to medical treatment centers where they stay until their mental health is officially determined as satisfying. For instance, John Hinckley, who had shot President Ronald Reagan in front of television cameras, was acquitted due to insanity and later sent to a health care institution (Martin, 1998). The standards of an insanity defense are currently toughened; prosecutors were formerly responsible for proving the insanity of their clients, however, defense attorneys should currently conduct these activities. The average terms of treatment for defendants who have pleaded their insanity are doubled to reduce the number of fake insanity pleas attempts.

Reference

Martin, J. P. (1998). The insanity defense: A closer look. Washington Post. Web.

Plea bargains in the Cumberland County are handled in the criminal courts. Under the plea bargains, defendants are expected to be notified in good time about the Miranda law. This law, which was developed after the Miranda ruling of 1966, has several components that establish the basis for bargaining for pleas (Cline, 2011). According to the Miranda law, it is the right of every citizen to be notified about the option of remaining silent upon arrest. For this reason, the police and any other person in the justice system should notify the defendant that upon being arrested, any information may be used against him. When a person is arrested and confesses of a crime before being told about the Miranda law, nothing said can be inadmissible against him.

Pleas are therefore developed under the concept of infringing the Miranda law by the arresting officers. These charges that are heard in the court of common pleas are subject to the intents of performing the alleged action. Voluntary and involuntary actions are analyzed before the courts can offer their judgments. One of the things that are investigated and considered by the courts of Cumberland County is voluntary acceptance and delivery of pleas. Compelling an individual to bargain for pleas is unacceptable and for this reason, voluntary acceptance of pleas should be prioritized (Gado, 2004).

It is also expected that the defendants prove of unknowing about the alleged crime case. Since guilty pleas have to be subject to the understanding of the criminal, investigations must show that the alleged person did not know about the crime at the time of performing it. There must be a plea agreement between both parties in order for any plea to hold. There must be substantial evidence to detach the alleged criminal with the criminal activity. Failure to have the required evidence leads the courts to make rulings that are subject to the statutes provided.

According to the courts provisions, the defendant is not to be notified about the collateral consequences pertaining to the plea applied for. This includes the projected credits, location of incarceration and the sentence expected. In case of insanity, the Cumberland county courts look at the intentions of committing the crime and for this reason, it becomes hard to use the insanity pleas as they require more than the intents to commit the crimes (Umbright, 2006). While the guilty pleas are not so common, there are instances when they have to be scrutinized in order to ensure that the criminals are not doing so to gain some credit (Sandefr, 2003).

Prejudice and being compelled to accept charges has to be evaluated before allowing the plea bargains to proceed. Under the Miranda law, the accused must have been notified about the rights to silent and to a counsel before being arraigned in court. Otherwise, all information gathered before the Miranda statement cannot be used as a statement from the criminal (Cline, 2011). Under these conditions, the Cumberland County uses most of the provisions of the federal law to carry out decisions pertaining to plea bargains.

Plea bargaining are therefore subject to the findings upon investigation and witnesses’ information. Under the Cumberland’s court of common pleas, the types of cases present include some cases that are beyond the jurisdiction of other courts, domestic issues, arbitrary reviews and other criminal cases that require proper analysis to grant plea request (Town Court Listing, 2011). While the insanity defense is evaluated in terms of intents and the state of mind at the time of perpetrating the act, the courts in Cumberland have to follow the statutes that protect the rights of the criminals (Umbright, 2006).

In conclusion, plea bargains are approached in different perspectives depending on the reasons granted under the plea requests. While investigations serve as the most significant issues in court proceedings, the defendants’ arguments and status at the time of committing the crime are also evaluated.

References

Cline, S. G. (2011). What Are Miranda Rights and How Does One Get Them? Web.

Gado, M. (2004). The Insanity Defense. TruTV Crime Library. Web.

Sandefr, T. (2003). In Defense of Plea Barganining. Regulation, Fall. Web.

Town Court Listing. (2011). Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. Web.

Umbright, E. (2006). How do we decide who’s insane? Wentzville, MO: St. Charles County Business Record.

The defense of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) represents an integral part of American jurisprudence at present. More than half of the states follow a so-called “M’Naughten” rule of insanity plea when it comes to defending a person, who at the time of a crime committed was unable to think wisely or did not understand that his or her actions were a crime. Normally, whether an accused is sane or insane is determined by the results of the M’Naughten test.

The presence of the men’s rea (“guilty mind”) element of a crime, which is directly relevant to criminal intent, is known to have nudged 14 American states to start looking for an alternative to the existing NGRI verdicts and introduce the guilty but mentally ill verdict (GBMI) to the current court system. According to statistical analysis, its introduction has created a suitable environment for mock juries to refer to the alternative 2.5 times as frequently as they do with guilty verdicts (Richie et al., 2014).

As an example of the successful use of the insanity plea in the USA, one can bring a court case of 1859 held over Daniel Sickles, who shot Philip Barton Key in Lafayette Park for having a love affair with his wife. During a publicized trial, Sickles claimed temporal insanity evoked by rage. In the same year, he was acquitted of the murder charges and even received the public’s gratitude for killing the adulterer Philip.

Regarding the situation in the United Kingdom, the House of Lords accepted a subjective test as a more efficient means to detect the criminal intent, compared to the earlier used “M’Naughten” rules (Helm, Ceci, & Burd, 2016). The criticism of the former testing system (the one that is still used in the USA) reflected the intuitive assumption that the rules were too narrow to include all of those who were mentally ill and needed treatment.

In the meantime, an objective test paid attention to the perspective of a reasonable person and not just one’s ability/inability to distinguish the right from the wrong. Basically, it answers the question of whether a reasonable person could predict the degree of probability of the result derived from a defendant’s actions or not.

One of the most known insanity defenses, which took place in the United Kingdom court and led to the defendant’s discharge, is a trial course held over Daniel McNaughton. It is known that the accused killed the secretary of the British Prime Minister and was acquitted “by reason of insanity.” Naturally, this case provoked a public uproar, which forced the court to develop a stricter test and change the approach towards the insanity defense. Thus, the newly introduced test was named after the person who became the reason for the overall policy changing.

As to the criminal intent situation in Norway, the act of violence, which took place on July 22, 2011, had led to serious changes in the country’s criminal law (Grøndahl & Stridbeck, 2016). Anders Breivik, a middle-class Norwegian from Oslo, shocked his nation by shooting 69 people and bombing the government buildings on the same day. All in all, 77 people were murdered in those tragic events. Nevertheless, Brevik showed no signs of penance for what he did during the court sessions and even went in for the insanity defense, which sent another shock wave through Norwegian society.

The established Norwegian Criminal Cases Review Commission (NCCRC) has brought changes to the criminal law of the country. Thus, when considering psychosis influencing a crime outcome, the new Norway laws provide exceptions for the disorders caused by the ingestion of drugs. According to the researchers’ findings, forensic psychiatric experts are now used in less than one percent of felonies, and only 25% of those cases turn out to be successful (Grøndahl & Stridbeck, 2016).

References

Grøndahl, P., & Stridbeck, U. (2016). When insanity has gone undiscovered by the courts: The practice of the Norwegian Criminal Cases Review Commission in cases of doubts about insanity. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 26(3), 212-224.

Helm, R. K., Ceci, S. J., & Burd, K. A. (2016). Unpacking insanity defence standards: An experimental study of rationality and control tests in criminal law. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 8(2), 63-68.

Richie, W. D., Alam, F., Gazula, L., Embrack, H., Nathani, M., & Bailey, R. K. (2014). Frendak to Phenis to Breivik: An examination of the imposed insanity defense. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 5, 172-179

The insanity defense is a complex and controversial issue in the criminal justice system. It allows individuals suffering from a mental illness or defect to argue that they should not be held responsible for their illegal actions. In Arizona, in order to complete the insanity defense, you need to pass an abbreviated version of the M’Naghten test. In this edition, it is required to prove that a defendant did not know that he was doing something bad due to illness. In 2006, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Arizona’s insanity defense test in the case of Clark v. Arizona (Bloom, 2021). In the case study, the defendant shot at a police officer, killed him and fled the scene. She states that his diagnosed paranoid schizophrenia influenced his actions. I would not accept the case because I believe several issues prevent me from winning it.

In this case, the defendant may argue that he did not know his conduct was wrong due to their mental defect or disease. This argument must meet the requirements of the abbreviated version of M’Naghten in Arizona, which puts the burden of proof on the defendant (Arizona Revised Statutes). The evidence of schizophrenia will require a psychiatric evaluation and a review of medical records (Clark v. Arizona). It will be challenging to confirm the diagnosis without having previous medical records. Moreover, the lawyer will have to convince the jury that the defendant is not only ill but also affected by the fact that he was unaware of his actions. This will be difficult since the defendant fled the crime scene, believing he had committed some evil deed.

Thus, as a representative of the law, I have made the decision to reject the case. The defendant must prove the presence of paranoid schizophrenia and also that she was affected by his actions in such a way that he did not know what he was doing. Given the high burden of proof necessary to establish insanity in Arizona and the limited scope of the abbreviated M’Naghten test, I have determined that the chances of success, in this case, are limited.

References

Bloom, J. D. (2021). Arizona’s Insanity Defense, Clark, and the 2007 Legislature. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. Web.

Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006).

Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13, Chapter 14 (2021). Insanity Defense. Web.