Guilty by Reason of Insanity

¶ … Guilty by Reason of Insanity Defense

One of the harsh realities of the human condition is the frailty of the human psyche. Indeed, a majority of people will experience some type of depressive episode during their lives that will significantly interfere with their day-to-day activities. Nevertheless, most people manage to overcome these episodes and lead normal, productive lives. For others, though, mental illness can adversely affect their ability to interact with others, and in some cases, mentally ill people have committed criminal acts as well. In this regard, Wahl emphasizes that, "It cannot be denied that some individuals with mental illnesses have harmed others, occasionally in horrifying and headline-grabbing ways, and that sometimes their mental illnesses are contributing factors" (1999, p. 79). This point is also made by Cook (2001) who cites the impact of the media in sensationalizing serial killers and politically motivated violent acts as contributing to the public's misperceptions about the "not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity" defense. In this regard, Cook reports that, "As in other cases involving crimes with a political flavor (e.g., John Hinckley) and mass murderers or serial killers, public interest is aroused when the insanity defense becomes an issue in cases sensationalized by the media" (p. 106).

Proponents of the "not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity" defense would argue that a compassionate society should therefore recognize the inability of some mentally ill people to control their actions, even when they involve violent acts -- including killing others. For instance, Wahl also points out that, "The overwhelming nature of some of the symptoms of mental illness and the confusion and disorientation that can occur may make aggressive impulses more difficult to control" (1999, p. 79). Moreover, the symptoms of some types of mental illness have a more direct role in compelling people to violent acts. For example, some mentally ill people claim to "hear voices" that order them to harm or kill others, while others experience disturbing hallucinations that make them unable to distinguish reality (Wahl, 1999). Clearly, the "not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity" defense is appropriate for some of these mentally ill people. In this regard, Wahl points out that notwithstanding high-profile media accounts to the contrary, this defense is rare: "The 'not guilty by reason of insanity' defense is used in less than 1% of all felony cases in this country, and, in most (three-fourths) of those cases, the plea is unsuccessful. In other words, it is very rare that a crime is found to be a product of a mental illness" (1999, p. 79).

Despite its rarity, a growing body of research confirms that some mentally ill people are at higher risk of engaging in violent acts and behaviors (Wahl, 1999). This finding, together with the observation by Cook (2002) that the few cases that do use the insanity defense are frequently those high-profile cases that receive the most media attention, thereby contributing to further misperceptions on the part of the general public concerning the frequency of its use and its role in the criminal justice system. In this regard, Cook (2002) adds that, "As seems to be the case, the more sensational the crime or the more deranged the defendant, the more attention such cases get. As a result, the few cases witnessed by the general public tend to present a skewed view of the defense itself" (p. 106).

Notwithstanding these misperceptions among the general public, the insanity defense has in fact been criticized by some other authorities because of the ability of criminal defendants to escape punishment by faking their mental illness long enough to be placed in a medical facility rather than a penal institution (Cormier, 2010). This means that high-profile cases that successfully use the insanity defense will likely generate criticism of the plea, even in those instances where its application was justified. In this regard, Cromier reports that, "The details of the insanity defense is one area of the law that has been deeply impacted by specific cases (generally when the public backlashes against a defendant who has successfully used the defense)" (p. 130). In particular, the criticisms generated by the John Hinckley case catapulted the debate over the insanity defense to the national forefront (Cormier, 2010). In response to growing criticisms concerning the use of the insanity defense in the John Hinckley trial, in 1984, Congress passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act (hereinafter "the Act") that codified several changes to federal law as follows:

1. The Act provided a new standard for insanity, allowing defendants to offer, as an affirmative defense, evidence that at the time they committed the crime, they were unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions.

2. The Act shifted the burden of persuasion from the prosecution to the defendants, who then had to prove their insanity by clear and convincing evidence.

3. The Act provided for a verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity" in addition to the two traditionally accepted verdicts of guilty and not guilty.

4. The Act established a federal procedure for commitment of defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity (Ellias, 1995, p. 1063).