Insanity defense in criminal trial is justified in cases where, an individual fails to understand the nature of the crime committed or fails to distinguish wrong from right at the time of committing a criminal act (Goldstein, 2002). It also occurs when a defendant denies responsibility of engaging in criminal behavior as a result of having mental problems or illness. Definitions of insanity defense vary from one place to another but the basic underlying issue is an individual’s mental condition at the time of committing an offense. This type of defense has been in existence since the code of Hammurabi, a Babylonian law code that dates back from the 1780 BC. Initially, it was not used as an argument for determining if a defendant is guilty or not but as a way of pardoning or mitigating a sentence (Gray, 1990). The concept of using insanity to bar a defendant’s conviction was introduced by Isaac ray, an early nineteenth-century scholar in the medical jurisprudence of insanity and later through England’s seminal decision titled the M’Nagten case.
The defense asserts that a defendant should not be termed as guilty due to insanity. It bases its argument on the fact that, an insane person lacks the intent required in performing criminal actions because the individual either does not understand if the actions are wrong, or may not be in a position to control the actions even in cases where one knows that they are not right (Morse,1989). However, this argument is controversial because it is very difficult to define insanity itself; hence it posse’s challenges in determining circumstances of excusing criminals based on the defense. Although rarely used in criminal trials, members of the general public and legislators have greatly questioned the need for the defense when one in a publicized murder case remains not guilty due to insanity. For instance, it was successfully used in defense of john Hinckley against the murder of President Ronald Reagan. In the defense, Hinckley argued that he did so to impress an actress named Jodie foster, something not possible with mentally fit individuals. Moreover, the debate on the application of the defense has received divided opinions from both the medical and legal practitioners.
According to this defense, punishments and convictions are only justified if the offender deserves them. The underlying principle for punishment is that an individual who commits criminal offenses must have moral responsibility (Robitscher, 1982). An individual is termed as lacking moral agent responsibility when faced with mental problems or when not in a position to control his actions. Therefore, it would not be fair to punish a person in such extreme challenges. The defense cannot be applied in cases where an individual willingly takes powerful hallucinogens and then indulges in criminal activity nor can it be used in defending a person who is in a position to control mental problems through proper medication but fails to follow the doctor’s instructions. However, it can be used in defending people who unwittingly take hallucinogens and then commit criminal offenses.
Opponents of the insanity defense challenge its moral basis. They argue that modern criminal law is more concerned with the outcome of criminal offences and less concerned with the moral implications (Stephanie, 2008). If an individual commits a the criminal offence, conviction should take place. Mental challenges should be put into consideration at the sentencing stage and not while convicting offenders. A number of states have formulated a law using this line of argument, they have replaced insanity defense with a guilty but insane verdict. The new verdict gives the judge mandate to determine the offender’s imprisonment length and is applicable in prison hospitals. It also places some responsibility to the defendant by providing an opportunity for proving that one is longer mentally challenged or dangerous in order to be set free (Goldstein, 2002). Only four states completely dishonor defense on basis of insanity and they include Idaho, Kansas, Montana and Utah but all the other states allow it although the standards for proving whether a person is guilty or not vary widely.
References
Goldstein, J.K.& Katz, J.L.(2002). Abolish the Insanity Defense-Why Not. Yale Lj,78(68),890-911.
Gray, S.H.(1990). Insanity Defense: Historical Development and Contemporary Relevance. Am. Crim. L. Rev,78(67),890-910.
Morse, S.J.(1989). Excusing the crazy: The insanity defense reconsidered. S. Cal. L. Rev,58,786-890.
Robitscher, J.Y.& Haynes, A.K.(1982). In defense of the insanity defense.A criminal defense journal,31,9-21.
Stephanie,A.J.(2008). Criminal law, criminal procedure, and the constitution. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.