This new reformulation of the insanity defense, a kind of a fusion of the earlier M'Naghten and Durham tests, was intended to be a less constrictive version of the right-wrong and irresistible impulse tests. Today, "most states in the union allow this 'right-wrong' test and some states also allow defendants to argue that that they understood their behavior was criminal but were unable to control it. This is sometimes called the irresistible impulse defense" (Martin 1998).
Insanity defenses are controversial amongst the public, just like M'Naghten's acquittal. Yet despite the perception the defense is misused, "less than one percent of defendants plead insanity and, of them, only a quarter win acquittals" (Martin 1998). The majority of defendants acquitted by reason of insanity suffer from schizophrenia or some other mental illness (Martin 1998). To be criminally committed to a state mental institution is not a 'gift.' In almost all cases, a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity means being committed to a mental institution until the defendant deemed no longer a danger to the community. "For some, that could be akin to a life sentence. M'Naghten, for instance, died after 20 years in a mental asylum" and a criminal commitment can be longer than if the defendant had been found sane and guilty of the crime (Martin 1998). Other political controversies rage around the defense as it involves public policy and economics: it is alleged that state budgets have more to do with how people are treated -- it may be more expensive to incarcerate individuals in need of treatment in a mental facility, for example, and drugs rather than counseling are cheaper and easier to administrate.
Individuals may also be involuntarily incarcerated until they are deemed competent to stand trial -- for example, until a schizophrenic accused of a crime is medically stabilized. Civil commitment is a kind of preventative treatment, whereby a mentally ill person can be incarcerated within a mental hospital involuntarily if deemed a danger to him or herself or others. This method of...
are committed by mentally ill individuals, and within such confinements, the persons rarely receive the treatment that they need to recover (Legal issues, 2009, University of Hawaii).
The involuntarily committed have rights, and although these vary by state they usually include the right to be examined by a doctor within a certain length of time, to be released when they no longer pose a danger to themselves or society, and to be told why they are being detained. If they are compelled to take medication because they are deemed a danger to themselves or others, they must be told what the medication is that they are taking. They also have a right to counsel and to refuse treatment if not a danger to themselves or others (Your rights under involuntary commitment, 1997, Advocacy, Inc.).
In reviewing these various aspects of the insanity defense, it becomes clear why the public is so often confused by the defense. Even legal professionals find it difficult to determine what constitutes a defendant's state of mind at a particular time. To define what any person, particularly a mentally unbalanced person is thinking continues to challenge legal scholars and the court system. However, doing away with the insanity defense, because of the injustices this would lead to would be, by any definition of the word, insane.
Works Cited
Durham rule. (2009). Law Dictionary. Retrieved March 5, 2009 at http://www.answers.com/topic/durham-rule
Legal issues. (2009). University of Hawaii. Retrieved March 5, 2009 http://www2.hawaii.edu/~heiby/Legal_Issues_Revised.html
Martin, John P. (1998, February 27). The insanity defense: A closer look. Washingtonpost.com.
Retrieved March 5, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/aron/qa227.htm
Your rights under involuntary commitment. (1997). Advocacy, Inc. Retrieved March 5, 2009 http://www.advocacyinc.org/IR2.cfm
Insanity
Criminal Insane Defense The insanity defense has been a topic of much controversy because of its perceived means of excusing someone from a crime that has been committed. Although much is perceived of the insanity defense as a way to avoid accountability, it is actually the least used defense strategy because of its extreme difficulty is proving it (Knoll & Resnick, 2008). Every individual is different, but someone trying to plead
" These authors purport that although mood and behaviour may constitute a vital part in disorderly outcomes of drinking scenarios, other social factors can equally contribute influences. These factors, according to these authors, can be categorized by the following factors: the attitude and motivations that young binge drinkers bring to drinking, the social and peer group norms under which they operate, and features relating to the drinking environment. Reasonable Investigations In the journal
Criminal Law and Psychopathy I. Introduction Various studies have in the past indicated that there is a high correlation between violence/criminal behavior and psychopathy. This would largely be expected given that psychological studies into the character and disposition of psychopaths has demonstrated that the need for control (or power) as well as egocentrism, which also happen to be the dominant character traits of psychopaths, are predictors for deviant or antisocial behavior. The
Ethical Issues With the Insanity Defense Ethical Issues w / Insanity Defense The insanity defense may seem to have a distinct and real place in the legal world. However, defining who is insane, who is not insane, what the definition of insanity is, whether insanity is temporary or permanent, who should be liable and when and so forth are all burning questions that are extremely hard to answer in a scientific, dispassionate
When does insanity excuse criminal liability? A defendant has an excuse for liability, says Paul Robinson, in his book Criminal Law Defenses, when he or she is acting involuntarily and their own disability causes him or her to mistakenly or unknowingly violate a criminal prohibition. This person does not know whether his or her behavior is wrong or criminal (Robinson 222). This is in contrast to what is called a character-based
For example, there is currently a case in Florida were a 50-year-old woman shot and killed her teenage son and daughter. She said she did it because they were "mouthy" to her and she was tired of it. There is no word yet on whether she will plead insanity, but there is evidence that she purchased a gun days before the shooting occurred (Brennan, 2011). That could block her