The Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity Defense Explained

Introduction: Mental Illness and Criminal Behavior

One of the harsh realities of the human condition is the frailty of the human psyche. 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 public misperceptions about the "not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity" defense. 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 recognize the inability of some mentally ill people to control their actions, even when those actions involve violent acts — including killing others. Wahl 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 play a more direct role in compelling people toward 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 prevent them from distinguishing reality (Wahl, 1999). Clearly, the "not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity" defense is appropriate for some of these individuals.

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).

Public Misperceptions and Media Influence

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 Cook's (2002) observation that the few cases which do invoke the insanity defense are frequently high-profile cases receiving the most media attention, contributes to further public misperceptions about the frequency of its use and its role in the criminal justice system. 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).

Criticisms of the Insanity Defense

Notwithstanding these public misperceptions, the insanity defense has been criticized by some authorities because of the ability of criminal defendants to escape punishment by feigning 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. Cormier 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).

The 1984 Insanity Defense Reform Act

In response to growing criticisms concerning the use of the insanity defense in the John Hinckley trial, Congress passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act in 1984, which codified several changes to federal law as follows:

Conclusion

For the most extreme cases, the Act stipulates that individuals may not be adjudicated in criminal courts even for the most horrendous criminal acts, but should instead be treated in mental health facilities until they are competent and capable of actively participating in their defense in meaningful ways. The ability of some people to successfully feign mental illness to escape punishment, as well as the wide range of approaches used by different states to establish insanity, has generated criticism among the general public and scientific community alike — to the extent that several states have modified their evaluative standards to further restrict the defense's use.

References

Black's law dictionary. (1999). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.

Cook, J. R. (2001). Asphalt justice: A critique of the criminal justice system in America. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Cormier, J. W. (2010). Providing those with mental illness full and fair treatment: Legislative considerations in the post-Clark era. American Criminal Law Review, 47(1), 129–130.

Ellias, R. (1995). Should courts instruct juries as to the consequences to a defendant of a 'not guilty by reason of insanity' verdict? Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85(4), 1062–1083.

Wahl, O. F. (1999). Media madness: Public images of mental illness. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.