Topic: Examine the history of the Texas insanity rule

The topic of insanity as a defense is particularly apropos considering the recent criminal justice incidents within the media. Over the past few years, America has been marred by tragic shooting deaths and the resulting aftermath for gun regulation. In many of these tragedies, the perpetrator has used the excuse of insanity as a means to circumvent or even undermine the criminal justice system. Historically, defendants have used the insanity excuse in both federal and state court as means of sidestepping responsibility for their actions and behaviors. Here, the state of Texas is no exception in allowing these elements with their courtroom. In Texas, the insanity defense is including a broader array of defenses know as excuse defenses. The insanity defense is unique in that it is considered a complete defense and must result in a not guilty finding if the insanity ruling is upheld. In most states, the defendant must prove insanity based on the preponderance of the evidence. Other states, such as a Texas, require the defendant to meet a much higher standard of proving insanity using very clear and convincing evidence to confirm their claim. Some states, excluding Texas, actually allow the burden of proof to fall on the prosecution, with the standard here being that they must establish insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. In the state of Texas, legal insanity and medical insanity are heavily differentiated. Legal insanity is based on many, often evolving statutes that are based on common law . In the state of Texas defendants must prove that at the time the crime was committed, the perpetrator was legally insane. In the state of Texas, all defendants must offer substantiated proof of mental disease. This often occurs through the use of various psychologists expert witness testimony, and other evidence proving insanity. This his historically been riddled with complication as proving insanity can be very difficult given the prevailing difficulties of the court system. For example, a Jeffrey Dahmer was unable to prove insanity although he was a sexually serial killer, who at young boys after he killed them. Here, Dahmer was diagnosed with personality disorder, personality disorder and psychotic disorder, but was still found sane during his trial. Dahmer, killed 17 young men, ate their body parts, and even conducted sexual acts on the dead bodies. He was still found sane indicating the complexity associated with the insanity rule and its applications in court. Today the insanity defense is used in about 1% of cases and is successful only about a of the time. However, due to the higher profile nature and heinous crimes by those using the insanity...

Often, these leads to a lack of public support for the insanity rule, particularly in Texas, as people view the rule as a means to help criminals circumvent punishment for their crimes. In addition, particularly in Texas, those who are found not guilty through the insanity defense often still pose a danger to society, and in extreme cases roam free within the state of Texas and beyond. As the statistics bear our however, most of the time, particularly within the state of Texas, the insanity rule is seldom used. When it is used however, it is only successful about 25% of the time. Even with these statistics the history of the insanity rule within the state of Texas has undergone significant change and modification over the years (Borum, 1999).

To begin, the history of the insanity rule in Texas is...

…their children using similar defenses. As a result, the state of Texas looked to change the scope of the law to narrow the use of insanity (Slobogin, 1985).

In 2004, Texas governor Greg Abbot revised the manner in which those who are proven not guilty by reason of insanity are allowed to matriculate back into society. Here the release standards where tightened in an effort to further protect the public from harms. In addition, all individuals proven not guilty where subject to out-patient supervision. Here, all individuals where required to be monitored in an effort to help lower recidivism. As a result, an entire tracking process was conducted to help better protect the public for other violent acts from these criminals.

Likewise in 2005, Abbot also instituted changes related to how experts are used in trial. Here, the legislation looked to heighten the standards as to what is considered an expert during a trial. This was used to help prevent causing confusion on the jury with experts who where not properly qualitied or considered to be experts in their field. This is particularly important as these experts exert considerable sway on the decision of others within the jury trial. The legislation also made minor changes to the insanity defense requiring those using it to give at least 10 days notice. By 2008, this was revised to include a 20-day notice that the insanity defense will be used in court proceedings. Finally, the legislation required that defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity must register with the department of health and human services within the state of Texas. Here, the department is allowed to collect information and maintain current record related to mental health treatments and outcomes. Likewise, the agency must provide annual reporting to the legislature regarding any changes in their mental…