Research Paper Undergraduate 4,464 words

Ethical Issues with the Insanity Defense in Criminal Law

~23 min read 6 sections Law · Criminal Law

Abstract

This paper examines the ethical dimensions of the insanity defense in criminal law, analyzing the competing interests of defendants, victims, legal professionals, and mental health clinicians. Drawing on case law, scholarly literature, and psychological research, the paper traces the historical origins of the insanity defense from the M'Naughten case through contemporary applications, explores debates over temporary insanity and borderline personality disorder, considers the role of neuroscience in objective assessment, and addresses special circumstances such as medication noncompliance, wartime conduct, and brainwashing defenses. The paper concludes with recommendations for refining ethical and legal standards to better distinguish genuine mental illness from calculated use of the defense.

Key Takeaways

Introduction: Core ethical tensions in the insanity defense
Background and Origins of the Insanity Defense: M'Naughten case and foundational legal principles
Key Legal and Ethical Debates: Temporary insanity, BPD, competency, and jurisdictional issues
Special Circumstances and Complex Cases: Release decisions, brainwashing, PTSD, and wartime conduct
The Role of Neuroscience and Medical Ethics: Objective brain-scan evidence versus psychiatric opinion
Conclusions and Recommendations: Reform proposals and professional accountability standards

✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾

What makes this paper effective

The paper synthesizes a broad range of peer-reviewed sources across law, psychiatry, psychology, and neuroscience to build a multi-faceted argument rather than relying on a single disciplinary lens.
Concrete case examples — M'Naughten, John Hinckley, Patty Hearst, Lorena Bobbitt, and the Aurora shooter — ground abstract ethical arguments in recognizable real-world events.
The paper consistently acknowledges competing interests (defendants' rights vs. victims' justice) without collapsing into a one-sided polemic, which strengthens its analytical credibility.

Key academic technique demonstrated

The paper demonstrates effective use of synthesized literature review to map an ongoing legal and ethical debate. Rather than summarizing sources one by one, the author weaves together findings from legal journals, psychiatry research, and neuroscience studies to show where consensus exists and where genuine ambiguity remains — a technique central to graduate-level analytical writing on contested policy questions.

Structure breakdown

The paper opens with a problem statement establishing the core ethical tension. It then moves through historical background, contested legal standards (including temporary insanity and BPD), special-circumstance scenarios (war, medication noncompliance, brainwashing), and the promise of neuroscientific evidence. It closes with a recommendations section that calls for clearer professional standards and accountability for legal personnel who exploit the defense. Each section builds logically on the prior one.

📘 Read the full research paper guide → Generate citations → Build an outline → Draft a literature review → 📚 More Criminal Law examples →

Essay 4,464 words

Introduction

The insanity defense may seem to have a clear and legitimate 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 held liable and under what circumstances — all of these are pressing questions that are extremely difficult to answer in a scientific, dispassionate, and objective fashion. This difficulty arises from the competing rights and burdens of everyone involved: defendants, victims, legal counsel, and clinicians. This paper seeks to examine questions about the ethics of the lawyers, defendants, prosecutors, and clinicians involved in the insanity defense process.

There are numerous cases, both current and historical, regarding the insanity defense. In some cases, those convicted of committing heinous crimes were found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). In some instances, the person who committed the crime was not aware or cognizant of his or her actions at the time the crime was committed. In other cases, the perpetrator was not in his or her right mind and was afflicted by some form of mental illness. Even given the fairly basic rationale for the plea, several ethical issues become apparent in its application. The criminal justice system is sworn to protect and serve the community. In many cases, ethical questions arise only when there is a misuse of the insanity defense. This defense can sometimes cause one to question whether the system is working as intended, particularly because victims of a perpetrator are left to process the loss of their loved ones in the wake of a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict. In some situations, criminals are not competent to stand trial, leaving victims' families without closure — especially when no death or life sentence is involved. However, criminals who commit crimes without knowledge of their acts should be entitled to receive proper help and a fair trial, rather than simply being imprisoned and left untreated (Cornell, 2015).

Background and Origins of the Insanity Defense

The insanity defense is based on the assumption that at the time of the crime, the defendant was not sound of mind and was therefore incapable of appreciating the nature of the crime or differentiating right from wrong. For those who are deemed insane, treatment rather than imprisonment is the proper protocol (Cornell, 2015).

The insanity defense holds that a criminal should not be found guilty on the basis of mental illness — that is, not guilty by reason of insanity — because he or she could not distinguish between right and wrong, or between good and evil. The insanity defense traces its origins to Daniel M'Naghten, an Englishman who shot and killed the secretary of British Prime Minister Robert Peel in 1843. M'Naghten was subsequently sentenced to a mental institution for the remainder of his life because he was declared mentally ill at the time he committed the crime (Legal Information Institute, 2010; Cornell, 2010).

Some people use "temporary insanity" or "heat of the moment" defenses to justify why a crime occurred while simultaneously arguing that the person who committed the offense should not be incarcerated (Covey, 2011). Much of the medical, psychology, and psychiatry fields strive to be precise and specific, but there is considerable room for interpretation and manipulation when it comes to mental health details surrounding crimes and associated defenses — except where objective tools such as brain scans are employed (Shiels, 2014).

4 Sections Hidden · 2,360 words

Key Legal and Ethical Debates950 words

The criminal justice system is supposed to protect the lives of its citizens, though this is not always the outcome. Although the laws of the land are designed to protect, the…

Special Circumstances and Complex Cases620 words

Another dimension to the insanity defense is how to deal with, and how long to confine, people who are actually found innocent by reason of insanity. The general principle is that if and when a person is…

The Role of Neuroscience and Medical Ethics480 words

Smith (2012) observes that while it is relatively easy to scrutinize the ethics of lawyers and defendants in any legal case — and especially in an insanity plea case — the same ethical standards must be applied to the medical professionals involved. Many hold that the central question is a straightforward one: was…

Conclusions and Recommendations310 words

Criminal cases in which the insanity defense can or will be used will always be a feature of the legal landscape. There are obvious cases where the defense has been used or…

View Full Document

References

Blau, G. L., McGinley, H., & Pasewark, R. (1993). Understanding the use of the insanity defense. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49(3), 435–440.

Carroll, A., Scott, R., Green, B., Dalton, T., Brett, A., & McVie, N. (2009). Forensic mental health orders: Orders without borders. Australasian Psychiatry: Bulletin of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, 17(1), 34–37. doi:10.1080/10398560802311193

Cheatham, C. S., & Litwack, T. R. (2003). Professionals' attitudes regarding whether a New York defendant who delusionally refuses a viable, counsel-recommended insanity defense should be found competent or incompetent to stand trial. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 31(4), 433–460.

Cornell. (2015, February 10). Insanity defense. Retrieved February 10, 2015, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/insanity_defense

Covey, R. D. (2011). Temporary insanity: The strange life and times of the perfect defense. Boston University Law Review, 91(5), 1597–1668.

Emory, R. (2010). Losing your head in the washer — Why the brainwashing defense can be a complete defense in criminal cases. Pace Law Review, 30(4), 1337–.

Grover, S. (2007). It's a crime: Reexamining the successful use of posttraumatic stress disorder as a legal defense to child sexual assault in the Canadian case of R. v. Borsch. Ethical Human Psychology & Psychiatry, 9(1), 5–13.

Hathaway, M. (2009). The moral significance of the insanity defence. Journal of Criminal Law, 73(4), 310–317. doi:10.1350/jcla.2009.73.4.581

Kalis, A., & Meynen, G. (2014). Mental disorder and legal responsibility: The relevance of stages of decision making. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 37(6), 601–608. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2014.02.034

Meynen, G. (2012). An ethical framework for assessments of criminal responsibility: Applying Susan Wolf's account of sanity to forensic psychiatry. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 35(4), 298–304. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.04.011

Muslim, J. K., & Chaleby, K. (2007). The insanity defense in Iraq. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 2(1), 57–64. doi:10.1080/15564900701238575

Rhodes, A., & Segre, L. (2013). Perinatal depression: A review of U.S. legislation and law. Archives of Women's Mental Health, 16(4), 259–270. doi:10.1007/s00737-013-0359-6

Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J. (2011). Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(4), 592–607. doi:10.1002/bsl.995

Shiels, R. S. (2014). The uncertain medical origins of diminished responsibility. Journal of Criminal Law, 78(6), 467–476. doi:10.1177/0022018314557419

Sisti, D. A., & Caplan, A. L. (2012). Accommodation without exculpation? The ethical and legal paradoxes of borderline personality disorder. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 40(1), 75–92.

Smith, S. (2012). Neuroscience, ethics and legal responsibility: The problem of the insanity defense. Science & Engineering Ethics, 18(3), 475–481. doi:10.1007/s11948-012-9390-7

Torry, Z. D., & Weiss, K. J. (2012). Medication noncompliance and criminal responsibility: Is the insanity defense legitimate? Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 40(2), 219–242.

Vitacco, M. J., Vauter, R., Erickson, S. K., & Ragatz, L. (2014). Evaluating conditional release in not guilty by reason of insanity acquittees: A prospective follow-up study in Virginia. Law and Human Behavior, 38(4), 346–356. doi:10.1037/lhb0000071

Key Concepts in This Paper

Insanity Defense M'Naughten Rule Forensic Psychiatry Temporary Insanity Criminal Responsibility Neuroscience Evidence Competency to Stand Trial NGRI Acquittals Borderline Personality Disorder Medical Ethics