The Insanity Defense

By Allison Kelly & Jesse Shuter

What it is: A defense for criminals in trials arguing that their state of mind is not sane, and their actions reflect that. Due to mental illness, they should not be held accountable to the same standards as regular sane beings.

Viewpoints: One) The criminal should not be held accountable for their actions. Reasons for this include that they might not be fully aware of their actions, and if they are aware, they might not know that it is a “bad” thing, or the neurological synapses in their brain do not function like they should causing them to be excessive in behavior. Some people refer to the criminal as lacking the appreciation to what they did.

       Two) This is not a thing/there are variants of mental illness. Reasons these two viewpoints exist are because the victim believes even though the person might be mentally ill, they are still guilty. Some believe that people use this excuse too excessively. And some people think that the person did it, they should receive punishment for their actions.

Real life example: There were two men. William Freeman and Jack Furman. Jack Furman had stole a horse but blamed Freeman. Through a long court case of back and forth, Freeman was finally sentenced to five years in prison. Freeman spent his time, but got beat. He even got hit on the head by a guard. People said when he got out, he was slow, not his normal self, and had an eerie constant smile.

Shortly after he got out he murdered a family, and was taken to jail again. The argument for Freeman’s case was that he was not in the same mind as he was before incarceration the first time. There was a lot of deliberation, but the jury thought Freeman’s slow behavior and unemotional state was due to him being African American. In the end, Freeman died, and died from brain deterioration.

Questions: I wonder, how much research is there on mental illness?

A dilemma that has been plaguing law enforcement for ages is whether or not adolescents who commit crimes should be treated the same as an adult who commits crimes. It’s only fair that criminals should be held accountable for their actions but should that be reconsidered when it comes to children? That is the question that the criminal justice system can’t come to a decision on.

First, let’s get the facts straight. Adolescents act different when out in groups. In a study conducted by Temple University, adolescents were asked to participate in an activity where they had to make a last minute decision on whether they should stop for a yellow light or keep going and hope for the best. When the adolescents were under the impression that their friends were watching them complete the activity, they were much more likely to run the yellow light. Although for adults, there was no change in behavior when they were told a friend was observing them. When compared to the results gathered from adults who participated in the experiment as well, it was obvious how much of an impact the presence of peers has on adolescents’ decision making skills. When adolescents are out in group the part of their brain that has to do with rewards light up which makes them more focused on the reward for making a risky decision than the possible dangers.

Some people think that in order to fix this problem, actions should be taken to try to reduce the crime rates of adolescents so that they don’t have to get involved in the criminal justice system in the first place. They want to stop the problem at the source. Changes that can be made to make this possible are better enforcement of curfew and increased adult supervision. Although there are some people who believe that adolescents should be held to the same standards as adults, regardless of their age. These people doubt that adolescents’ not yet fully-developed brains affect their behavior and that they should be able to control themselves and their urges when around their friends.

Another unique viewpoint on this debate is to blame the parents of the young offender. These people believe that the child acts out because of economic or social problems in their family. Children are a product of their parents and if the kid is a bad egg, the parent must be too. This poses the question: Who is really to blame? The adolescent with the easily influenced brain, the bad parent, the bad friends, all of the above?

http://readingcraze.com/index.php/cause-and-solution-of-juvenile-delinquency/

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/11/15/daily-circuit-juvenile-offenders-brain-development

Eyewitness testimonies refers to people who have witnessed a crime. They usually have to give a description of what happened at the crime and who they remembered were involved.  The problem with eyewitness testimonies is that they are not always accurate or true.

Based in the case study that BBC produced. A  short experiment was filmed, where they played out a fake murder and they have 15 people witness someone getting stabbed then later dying. They took those people to asked them about what they had remembered about that incident that afternoon. Based on the results of what people had said, no one really remembered what happened and everyone missed or added details. What was shocking was the fact that some people said things that they thought happened but did not actually occur. They also put the same eyewitnesses into a room with the victim and the two suspects. The rest of the people who innocent and random people. The majority of the eyewitnesses believed that #2 was the suspect or they believed that he was at the scene. In fact he was one of the innocent men that they randomly put his photo there. So in conclusion it is very possible that your brain and what you remember is always accurate.

I think that personally this topic is very conflicting because there are cases and eyewitness testimonies all the time for cases like this. This could possibly lead to convicted or sending someone innocent to jail and letting the person who actually did the crime go free. I think that this has to do with witnesses being mislead. It is possible that based on how serious what they witness actually happened and if that affects them mentally. They could have anxiety which causes them to have mixed emotions and feelings. I think that possibly something like this could affect their memory. I think also a lot in cases there is a huge possibility that people have mistaken identification. I think that your brain tricks you into thinking someone or something was there when it really was not.

The insanity defense has been around for a while. A lot of people might not understand what that is, except for the fact that someone is “crazy” and gets to get away with whatever criminal act or wrong act they have done. However, the insanity defense has been part of the legal system for a while. “A criminal defendant who is found to have been legally insanewhen he or she committed a crime may be found not guilty by reason of insanity. In some cases, the defendant may be found guilty but sentenced to a less severe punishment due to a mental impairment.” Courts use different rules to test out to legally claim if someone falls under the insanity defense. Some states do not allow the insanity defense to be used as a way to defend the actions of a criminal act. Those states are Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Kansas.

The four different rules to test the insanity defense are: The M’Naghten Rule, the Irrisistable Impulse Test, the Durham Rule, and the Model Penal Code Test. Each one has a specific insanity claim that could correlate to what the defendant claims.

The M’Naghten Rule: The person did not realize what he/she was doing and they could not tell right from wrong because of a mind disease.

The Irrisistable Impulse Test: The person was unable to control their actions because of the mental disease.

The Durham Rule: Despite being diagnosed for a mental illness, the person still committed a criminal act.

Model Penal Code Test: The person was diagnosed for a mental disease, but was unable to understand the criminality behind their actions.

One such case of the Insanity Defense was of William Freeman. He had a head injury while he was in prison from being hit by lumber by a guard. After he was released, he was seemed to have gone deaf and become slow witted. He was then arrested for the murder of a farmer and his family. William H. Seward represented the casr for Freeman and used the insanity defense as the plea for Freeman. There was a guilty verdict, however, it was taken to the Supreme Court to be tried. Freeman died in his jail cell before a decision was made, but later on in an autopsy showed that he had advanced brain detrioration. It was not really proven that it was his mental illness that had caused him to murder.

The insanity defense is very hard to use to defend someone who has comitted a serious crime. How do we decide what level of insanity will allow a person to be guilty or not. I think that those who can prove insanity and fall under it should have some kind of repercussions. Even if they have no control over themselves, they still comitted a crime. There can be people who lost their lives, people traumatized for life, people losing their loved ones because of  one person. The insanity defense in my opinion should not be an excuse for people to be not guilty or set free. It should be taken to consideration but still be given the proper punishment or repercussions necessary. Many people have different ideas and beliefs on this issue.

Sources

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/insanity-defense.html

The Insanity Defense

It is a legitimate excuse to blame your actions on psychological effects, and not yourself. For example, you could be a dilutional person. If you are convicted for murder, you can use the insanity defense, where as you say this wasn’t my fault and I am, or was not honest with myself for what I did. It’s not always the case and most likely hard to get away with something you have done. You will not serve jail time depending on your claims, although you might be sentence to an asylum. In the case of John Hinckley, he was suffering a mental illness that believed in order to win the heart of an actress of Jodie Foster to Reagan was by killing him based on a movie, John believed that this was the only way. But who are we to blame? Sure, one might argue that the events for John was completely his fault for targeting someone with very high power. Others may argue because of the effects of this was because of a diagnosed mental illness he grew up with which his parents knew about. See who’s fault it is now?

“John Hinckley Jr. was 25 years old when he quickly emptied a six-shot, .22-caliber revolver to try to win the affection of Jodie Foster by assassinating President Ronald Reagan. He had become obsessed with the actress after seeing her portray a teenage prostitute in Taxi Driver, in which Robert De Niro's deranged character, Travis Bickle, plots to kill a presidential candidate.”

His intentions were indeed wrong, but he never would have done this because his reasoning was because he wanted to impress someone he cared about even if it meant his life. He truly believed this was the only way as he said so himself when sending letters to Jodie. “Jodie, I would abandon this idea of getting Reagan in a second if I could only win your heart and live out the rest of my life with you, whether it be in total obscurity or whatever.

     I will admit to you that the reason I'm going ahead with this attempt now is because I just cannot wait any longer to impress you.  I've got to do something now to make you understand, in no uncertain terms, that I am doing all of this for your sake!  By sacrificing my freedom and possibly my life, I hope to change your mind about me.”

Readers, you may be asking yourself, “Ok, so what? What does this have to do with science?” This man is confused, how do you pled not guilty after trying to murder the president of the united states? The answer is not so easy to explain, but if you compare it to a different case, you might see why. A 40 year old teacher had a mental illness because of a tumor he had in his brain. This tumor caused him to have sexual urges around small children, in this case, he was a pedophile. Once his tumor was removed, he had no such desires and could continue teaching without being a child predator (without the kidnapping). Now who's he to blame? The tumor or the man?

In society, these are real life cases that are really hard to point out. But because of his psychological condition, maybe the man did have urges before, but kept it in a controlled and professional manner that it was harmless, much like trying to conceal an erection when giving a speech in front of an audience. This is a valid reason to why a person like himself should’t be tried, if ever so. The doctors couldn’t even tell exactly why these urges ended once the tumor was removed. This is like trying to prove how kids develop autism, even though there are no evidence to how it is lead. See the similarities? The insanity defense is a valid excuse to use if someone is unable to stand trial because of something they probably had no control over, and some people might need a psychiatrist in court to prove whether or not they should or should not be guilty.

Sources:

1. "The Trial of John Hinckley." The Trial of John Hinckley. Famous American Trials. Web. 06 June 2016. <http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleytrial.html>.

2. "Doctors Say Pedophile Lost Urge after Brain Tumor Removed." USA TODAY. USA TODAY, 2003. Web. 06 June 2016. <http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-07-28-pedophile-tumor_x.htm>.

3. The Insanity Defense. Psychology Today. N.p., 16 Aug. 2012. Web. 06 June 2016. <https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/almost-psychopath/201208/the-insanity-defense>.

Winter, Michael. "John Hinckley: The Man Who Shot Brady, Reagan." USA Today. Gannett, 2014. Web. 06 June 2016. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/04/james-brady-john-hinckley/13598699/>.

Throughout the process of conviction and court cases, there comes a variety of different standards that are put into place, in order to make sure criminals are put to justice in ways that make sense. This is the most common of scenarios. However, this can change, if those convicted are believed to be mentally incapable of standing trial, which can be plead if one doesn’t believe they are either innocent or guilty. Individuals may make this plea themselves, or, in the case that the judge or the jury believes that the convicted falls along that criteria. This defense, while almost rarely used today, is critical, in order to provide fair and equal treatment for anyone who happens to find themselves in a court of law.

There are many different opinions regarding this defense. Proponents of the argument believe that, with enough evidence, allows those who severely need help are able to be provided with that help, specific to the extent of psychological or psychiatric impairment, and while this is entirely true, it isn’t always the case, as opponents tend to believe this defense is a means to allow criminals to be released on charges that range from shoplifting to full blown manslaughter. The morale is often challenged, considering the fact that there are often times exceptions to this defense that work against whoever happens to be using it. The term ‘insanity’ itself is a very broad term, legally, because there are vast differences from each psychiatric disorder, both in how it affects patients, and what comes out of these afflictions.

A modern case study comes from that of James Holmes, who opened fire into a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado back in 2012. While the motives for this case are to this day still unknown, evidence found gives a bit of insight on what might have gone on in Holmes’ mind before the shooter, as journal entries written by Holmes himself showcases pretty disturbing content. Without getting down into the nitty gritty details, Holmes appears to be very apathetic about the way society and the world looks. The theme of death and humanity appear quite often in his writings, which  could lead one to believe that yes, maybe there was a touch of depression, however, often times during such a state, one is still mentally in control of their behaviors, without regard to more serious cases, typically ones ending in depression induced psychosis. While psychiatric evaluations were complete, in order to gauge Holmes mentality, the further notes he had taken down describe how the shooting was to take place, even going as far as to describe the ETA of police officers, depending on his location. It’s disturbing to think someone would put so much effort into planning the deaths of innocent civilians, which typically is the case in mass shootings. The insanity defense is very tricky in that there are many factors that can and cannot dictate how we view someone as, quote, ‘insane.’ While one can be mentally incapable to stand trial, Holmes eye for detail really shows that he knew what he was doing, down to the last second, and knew how he was going to carry everything out, something one typically doesn’t have should they meet the requirements of this defense.

Scientifically, this defense helps allow for psychiatric advances for criminal behaviors. What causes them? Is there any correlation between a certain ailment, and a certain crime? Are we really meant to judge the criminally insane, when they’re not completely ‘there,’ in a sense? The human brain is extremely fascinating as it is complex. While it has already been proven that there are in fact specifics in the brain that often times make for these criminal behaviors, being able to classify each sickness to its victim, and finding appropriate treatment or punishment is key, in order to keep things in the legal system with some level of morality. As a societal whole, giving those who wouldn’t necessarily have the chance to obtain such a substantial amount of treatment for behaviors that harshly inflict everyday living is key. The US legal system has many advantages as it does flaws, especially in the gray areas revolving around psychiatric disorders and how the affect criminals. Having the knowledge to determine what makes sense to do in what situation is an advancement, as too many people are getting off with charges lesser than their actual crime, for reasons that make absolutely no sense. Yes, it’s imperative that every potential inmate have a fair trial, the outcomes are sometimes less than beneficial.

http://czyborra.com/pedofiles/sexuologen/brain-tumor.pdf

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/11/opinion/cevallos-insanity-defense/

http://law.jrank.org/pages/7666/Insanity-Defense-THERE-NEED-INSANITY-DEFENSE.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/from-the-notebook-of-james-holmes-movie-theater-shooting-trial/2/

Attached is a more informal look at this defense.