The Insanity Defense and the Law

A man named William Freeman, the son of a former slave and Native American woman, was wrongfully arrested for the theft of a horse. He was treated horribly in prison for five years, including getting beaten over the head by a guard with a piece of lumber. Once he was released from prison, he seemed to suffer from brain injuries, affecting his speech, hearing, actions, and decision making. He was always speaking of seeking revenge on people. Shortly after Freeman’s release from jail, a wealthy white family was murdered, which Freeman was then arrested for. Attorney William Seward defended Freeman, pleading insanity. Freeman was found guilty anyway. Freeman died in his jail cell a year later. An autopsy showed that he suffered from severe brain deterioration.
One viewpoint of this case is that William Freeman was not insane, and that he purposely committed the murders of the Nest family. The biggest argument for this viewpoint was that William Freeman’s stupidity and slow speech could be blamed on the fact that he was the son of a slave and Native American. Most people were extremely racist during this time period, and they didn’t want him to be proven innocent no matter what. Another viewpoint of this case is that William Freeman was insane, and did not know what he was doing. The argument for this case was that he was beaten over the head by a guard, and since the beating, his ability to function deteriorated.
Other than this case, there are many incidents of criminals pleading insanity. In one case, a schoolteacher was caught making sexual advances towards his female coworkers, and also towards his young step-daughter. Doctors found that the man had a large tumor in his brain. When that tumor was removed, his pedophilia symptoms went away. He was not charged for his actions because they could be blamed on his tumor.
Another example is a man who suffered from epilepsy who had the part of his brain removed which was causing his seizures. He didn’t know that during surgery his brain had been injured, which caused him to become addicted to sex and become interested in child pornography. He was arrested, and sentenced to five years in jail and five years on house arrest, instead of ten years in jail. The judge gave him this better sentence because she recognized that his actions were due to his injury, however at work he showed no signs of pedophilia, which meant he could’ve asked for help in those times of control.
These cases raise many questions. How much blame should a criminal have for their actions? How do you prove whether or not a person is insane? How do we ensure that no one is taking advantage of the system by claiming insanity, while still ensuring that those who are truly insane receive fair sentencing?

Comments