When we discuss insanity and law, we notably point out the relationship between psychology, morals, and law. Criminal law imposes punishment on the basis of guilty intention and so does psychology in understanding human conduct. Let us try to understand these topics in brief with the help of this article.
“Although controversial, most states and the federal government recognize an insanity defense (18 U.S.C., 2010). Montana, Utah, Kansas, and Idaho are the only states that do not (Findlaw.com, 2010). The insanity defense is the subject of much debate because it excuses even the evilest and abhorrent conduct, and in many jurisdictions, legal insanity functions as a perfect defense resulting in acquittal. However, the insanity defense is rarely used and hardly ever successful. This is generally because of the difficulty in proving legal insanity.
Many criminal defendants suffer from mental illness and can produce evidence of this illness such as psychiatric or layperson testimony. Often, mental disturbance is apparent from the defendant’s conduct under the circumstances. However, legal insanity differs from medical insanity and is generally much more difficult to establish. Criminal prosecution should deter as well as incapacitate. While the purpose of a medical diagnosis is to eventually cure the defendant’s disorder, the purpose of criminal law is to punish the defendant. Thus, the defendant’s conduct is not excused if the defendant or society can benefit from punishment.”[1]
CASE LAWS
- In the case of State v. Crenshaw[2] is a criminal case interpreting the relationship of the insanity defense to a deific decree.[3] The Supreme Court of Washington carved out the deific exception from the standard set forth in People v. Schmidt (1915), that a person can be found not guilty by reason of insanity even if they knew their act was morally wrong by the standards of society and wrong under the law, if their mental disorder was a delusion that God commanded their act.[4] A mother insanely killed her child in the delusional belief that she was obeying God’s command.[5] It was found that “it would be unrealistic to hold her responsible for the crime, since her free will has been subsumed by her belief in the deific decree.[6]
- The case of People v. William Freeman(1847) was an important point in the formulation of the insanity defense as the Court held in that case that, even if a defendant is held to be competent enough to stand trial, they can still present evidence during the trial to support their defense of insanity.[7]
- In the case of Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), was a landmark S. Supreme Court case that upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed; therefore the petitioner is entitled to a competency evaluation and to an evidentiary hearing in court on the question of their competency to be executed.[8]
- Kahler v. Kansas, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a case of the United States Supreme Court in which the justices ruled that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution do not require that states adopt the insanity defense in criminal cases that are based on the defendant’s ability to recognize right from wrong.[9] It was argued on October 7, 2019 and decided on March 23, 2020.[10] [11]
VARIOUS TESTS THAT ESTABLISH INSANITY:[12]
- Under the M’Naghten Ruletest, the criminal defendant must either not understand what he or she did or be unable to distinguish right from wrong. This test relies on the notion that defendants may be diseased such that they are incapable of understanding their own actions.
- The Durham Ruleholds that if a criminal defendant’s “mental disease or defect” was the reason that he or she committed a crime, the defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity. This test is currently used only in New Hampshire, since it has been deemed too broad by other states and jurisdictions.
- The irresistible impulsetest is used to determine whether, as a result of a mental disease or defect, a defendant was unable to control or resist his or her own impulses, thus leading to a criminal act. If so, the defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity. Some states consider this test in combination with the M’Naghten test, holding that when a defendant could not understand his or her own actions, nor control them, the insanity defense applies.
- Under the Model Penal Code, the insanity defense applies when, because of a diagnosed mental disorder, the defendant could not understand the criminality of his or her actions or was unable to “act within the confines of the law.” This test is still used in many states, but it was criticized after it led to the acquittal of John Hinckley.
“Tests to determine if a defendant is criminally insane vary from state to state. For instance, any jurisdiction that follows the Model Penal Code (MPC) rule looks to see if the defendant lacked both substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongness of their actions and substantial capacity to conform their actions to the law. Jurisdictions that follow common law tests are primarily split between the M’Naghten Rule and the irresistible impulse test. Under the former, a party is criminally insane if they lacked the capacity to know they were committing a crime due to a mental defect. Under the latter, a defendant is criminally insane if they lacked total capacity to conform with the law.”[13]
CONCLUSION
The insanity defense is typically taken when one at the time of committing a crime was incapable of differentiating between right and wrong. For many years the defense of insanity was often taken by criminals on grievous crimes in order to avoid punishments. Therefore, it is the duty of the prosecutor to instill reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury or show evidence or proof of any kind that proves otherwise. The burden of proof in such cases completely lie on the prosecutor that the Defendant is not innocent. In cases where there is a minor involved, they are usually sent to a juvenile correction center which provides them with the car they need. “However, in 1982, John W. Hinckley was acquitted of the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan on the basis of an insanity defense, and this result caused many states to reform their insanity laws. Many states shifted the burden of proof from the prosecutor to the defense, requiring defense attorneys to show by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was insane. In Idaho, Kansas, Montana, and Utah, the defense of insanity was eliminated entirely. Instead, defendants may be found “guilty, but insane” and sentenced to psychiatric institutionalization instead of prison.”[14]
[1] 6.1 The Insanity Defense – Criminal Law (umn.edu) [2] 98 Wash. 2d 789, 659 P.2d 488 (1983). [3] Criminal Law - Cases and Materials, 7th ed. 2012, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business; John Kaplan, Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder, ISBN 978-1-4548-0698-1, [1] [4] Ibid. [5] Ibid. [6] Ibid. [7] insanity defense | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) [8] Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986). [9] Kahler v. Kansas - Wikipedia [10] Kahler v. Kansas, No. 18-6135, 589 U.S. ___ (2020) [11] Howe, Amy (March 23, 2020). "Opinion analysis: Majority upholds Kansas scheme for mentally ill defendants". SCOTUSBlog. [12] Below points have been retrieved from: The Insanity Defense in Criminal Law Cases | Criminal Law Center | Justia [13] criminal insanity | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) [14] The Insanity Defense in Criminal Law Cases | Criminal Law Center | Justia
