In recent years, there has been a substantial amount of published research about the insanity plea, the insanity defense, and other issues that revolve around perceived mental impairment. Although these studies have offered helpful insights into the use of the insanity plea and the insanity defense, it is still not clear how the sentences arising from the insanity plea operate and what factors must be proven by the defense team for a defendant to be deemed legally insane (Bartol & Bartol, 2016; Gulayets, 2016). The present paper aims to illuminate these issues with the view to developing an adequate understanding of the insanity plea and the insanity defense.
The Insanity Plea
The insanity plea basically entails taking a plea of not guilty on account of psychopathological illness that satisfies the definition of legal insanity (Wilson, 2016). In answering the question of which sentence becomes longer (the prison sentence or a mental institution sentence) when one takes the insanity plea, it is important to evaluate contextual variables such as the nature of the crime and the description of the psychopathological illness (Smith, 2012). In the variable on the nature of crime, Wilson (2016) argues that it is better to seek a prison sentence in less serious crimes since a successful insanity defense on account of psychopathology often results in many years of mandatory treatment in mental institution, not a free ride out of the prison system. However, in more serious crimes such as murder, the defense may decide to take the insanity plea despite the fact that a successful insanity defense would still result in many years of obligatory treatment in a mental hospital. This is because the offender may be jailed for life without the possibility of parole in such serious crimes.
In the variable on the nature of the discovered health condition, it is important to note that some psychopathological illnesses may take a lifetime to treat in a mental hospital, thus the institutionalized sentence may actually be longer than the prison sentence. This argument is reinforced by the Daniel McNaughtan’s case, where the offender was found not guilty on account of a serious psychopathological illness but nevertheless served 20 years in a mental hospital until his death in 1865 (Daftary-Kapur, Groscup, O’Connor, Caffaro, & Galietta, 2011). The justifications given in this response give credence to the observation that, in the insanity plea, a mental hospital sentence may actually be longer than the normal prison sentence.
The Insanity Defense
Determining the criminal insanity of a defendant using the “not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder” (NCRMD) framework is often an intricate and contentious issue within the legal systems of many countries around the world. Available literature demonstrates that “one possible reason for this general confusion and misunderstanding may be that how and why a defendant is found NCRMD is not well understood” (Gulayets, 2016, p. 162). Overall, the insanity defense is difficult to prove in a competent court of law due to several reasons, namely
- the unavailability of a clear and convincing standard to prove insanity,
- the confusion arising from describing ‘insanity’ as a legal concept, rather than a psychiatric concept of mental illness,
- intense media attention that may occasion subjective underpinnings, and
- the strict threshold of evidence demanded by many states for the defense team to prove insanity (Madsen, 2010; Smith, 2012).
Several factors must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt for a criminal offender to be considered criminally insane. Most of these factors revolve around the McNaughton Rule, which states that:
To establish a defense on the grounds of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from 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 that what he was doing was wrong” (Wilson, 2016, p. 29).
Drawing from this description of the McNaughton Rule, it becomes clear that one of the most important factors entails proving that the accused was suffering from a psychopathological disorder that rendered them incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act; that is the mental illness had severely constrained their reasoning capacity to understand the actions that led to the crime (Allnut, Samuels, & O’Driscoll, 2007; Smith, 2012). The defense team must also prove beyond any reasonable doubt that, in the event that the accused had prior information regarding the nature of the actions, they did not understand that the actions were wrong due to the effects of the psychopathological disorder (Schweitzer & Saks, 2011). In other states, the defense team is required to prove that the defendant is insane because the nature of their psychopathological illness has conspired to prevent them from resisting the urge to commit an illegal action that they know is wrong or against the law. Consequently, the defense team must prove that the offender was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the incident, and that the psychopathological illness interfered with their ability to make reasoned decisions or form a criminal intent (Gulayets, 2016).
Conclusion
By looking at the issues raised (criminal sentence versus mental hospital sentence, why the insanity defense is difficult to prove, and the factors that must be proved for an offender to be considered criminally insane), this paper has fulfilled its purpose of developing an adequate understanding of the criminal justice concepts of insanity plea and insanity defense.
References
Allnut, S., Samuels, A., & O’Driscoll, C. (2007). The insanity defense: From wild beasts to M’Naghten. Australasian Psychiatry, 15, 292-298. Web.
Bartol, C.R., & Bartol, A.M. (2016). Current perspectives in forensic psychology and criminal behavior (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Daftary-Kapur, T., Groscup, J.L., O’Connor, M.O., Caffaro, F., & Galietta, M. (2011). Measuring knowledge of the insanity defense: Scale construction and validation. Behavioral Science and the Law, 29, 40-63. Web.
Gulayets, M. (2016). Exploring differences between successful and unsuccessful mental disorder defenses. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 58, 161-193. Web.
Madsen, C. (2010). Law professors explain why insanity defense is difficult to prove. Web.
Schweitzer, N.J., & Saks, M.J. (2011). Neuro image evidence and the insanity defense. Behavioral Science and the Law, 29, 592-607. Web.
Smith, S.R. (2012). Neuroscience, ethics and legal responsibility: The problem of the insanity defense. Science & Engineering Ethics, 18, 475-481. Web.
Wilson, D. (2016). Not just evil: Murder, Hollywood, and California’s first insanity plea. New York City, NY: Diversion Books.