Strength of Insanity Defense in Making Court Decisions

¶ … Insanity' Defense

The John Hinckley Trial and the Impact on the Insanity Defense

Purpose of Insanity Defense

The theory that suffices the insanity defense involves the norm that most individuals can choose to follow the law. However, mental instability deprives individuals the ability to make rationale choices thereby they cannot be held accountable for their actions. Such groups of persons require special treatment as opposed to detention in prisons. The use of various forms of punishment does not necessarily deter future antisocial conduct of such mental unstable individuals. In the ancient Roman society, legal codes distinguished between the sane and insane individuals depicting accountability and unaccountability of actions respectively.

The Aftermath of the John Hinckley Defense

Backlash and Reform

In the John Hinckley case, the jury found the accused not guilty by the reason of insanity. As a result, backlash and public outcry emanated following the ruling. The ruling following the accused attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan raised eyebrows, and it stunned the majority of the Americans. After the Hinckley's verdict, insanity reforms amounting to eighty percent occurred between 1978 and 1990 (Linder, 2008). The reforms targeted limiting the use of insanity as a defense approach.

In the new act passed by the Congress, the aspect of 'lacks substantial capacity' replaces 'unable to appreciate' boundaries as defense strategies. The reshaping of the cognitive dimension distinguishes between a total lack of partial comprehension and understanding.

"The Guilty but Mentally Ill (GBMI)" verdict adopted in various states rendered offenders guilty despite their unstable mental states.

"The Burden Of Proof Shifts" holds the defendants to higher standards requiring convincing and clear evidence as a proof of insanity.

"Limiting The Use of Expert Witness" verdict depicted laws that limited the use of psychiatric testimonies in insanity trials.

"Abolition of the Insanity Defense" judgment represented the elimination of the use of insanity defense in its entirety in the states of Utah, Montana, and Idaho (Linder, 2008).

Lorena Bobbitt Case

The jury in the case acquitted the accused by the reason of temporary insanity. The jury agreed that an "irresistible impulse" triggered the abuse on the defendant compelled her action of cutting off her husband's penis. Lorena was sent to a mental hospital for examination and observation. The defense lawyers argued that the case was more than the act of chopping off the penis as it engulfed more on life. As required by the state of Virginia law, a jury placed Mrs. Bobbitt in custody to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. The assessment was meant to establish whether she poses a danger to herself or others.