You are on page 1of 8

Taylor Bosse

4/16/16
Petrides
Insanity Plea

When a defendant pleas not guilty by reason of insanity then this


means the defendant admits to committing the criminal act, but claims
he/she was so mentally disturbed at the time of the crime that he/she
simply did not posses the mental capacity necessary to understand they
were committing a crime, nor distinguish right from wrong. Although this
defense is called not guilty by reason of insanity this does not mean the
defendant isnt guilty, it simply means there was a reason out of their control
for why they committed this act, such as severe mental defect or illness,
that requires them to seek medical attention in a psychiatric ward more
times than not, instead of being sentenced to jail. So the question is, is the
insanity plea a legitimate defense and if so what tests are administered to
prove the validity of their mental state?
When discussing this topic there will be sources used including
Demythologizing Inaccurate Perceptions of the Insanity Defense by Eric
Silver, Carmen Cirincione, and Henry Steadman, Criminal Incompetency by
Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter, Proving Insanity Beyond a

Reasonable Doubt: Leland V. State of Oregon by Gordon Linkon, and

Criminality, Insanity and the Law by Benjamin Karpman to discuss and further
explain different aspects of this debate.
In the article Criminal Incompetency by the Mental and Physical
Disability Law Reporter there is an example of a law set in place in Texas to
prove the validity of a defendants claim to insanity. A Texas appeals court
ruled that a trial court is barred from holding a hearing to extend the
commitment of a criminal defendant found incompetent to stand trial unless
two valid mental examination certificates are on file in Marroquin v. Texas in
2003. This article also gives a good example of what incompetency is not.
Lary Davis was sentenced to death for murder, and during his trial he
insisted on staying in a wheel chair despite not having any physical disability,
he insisted on wearing his prison uniform to court, and he also elected to not
sit at table with his council during some of the proceedings. After his
sentence to death was handed down he filed for a habeas corpus accusing
the court of continuing the trials penalty phase when he was unfit for court,
and claimed they should have called for a trial competency hearing. This
motion was denied on ground that no evidence was presented that the court
continued unjustly. Davis had consulted with his attorneys, understood the
nature of the proceedings, weighed the dangers associated with his absence
against those associated with the jurys observing his relations to the
proceedings, and knew that he faced life imprisonment or the death
penalty. So by including this case this article explains that even though a

defendant can be acting in a questionable manner this doesnt necessarily


mean he can file for insanity or incompetency.
Another big discussion point for the insanity plea controversy is the
concern that guilty criminals could potentially be getting off with no
reprimands for their actions. In the article Demythologizing Inaccurate
Perceptions of the Insanity Defense by Eric Silver, Carmen Cirincione, and
Henry J. Steadman they talk about how they did research to prove or
disprove this common assumption about how the death penalty works. In
the article it states that the most prevalent concern expressed regarding
the insanity defense is that it is a loophole through which would be criminals
escape punishment for illegal acts. This is the most common assumption
about the death penalty according to public opinion data, and then
additionally the article states that it will address the perception of the use,
success, and outcomes associated with the insanity defense to data derived
from a large scale study of insanity pleas and further more the analysis
reveals that the public overestimates the use of and success of an insanity
defense and underestimates the extent to which insanity acquittes are
confined upon acquittal. This article is important because it speaks to the
relation between people who plead the insanity plea, people who actually are
able to fall under the insanity plea, and what actually happens to them after
their trial. Also in Criminal Insanity and the Law by the Journal of the
American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology it is added that at the

Dannemora Hospital, also for the custody and care of insane convicts, the
conditions are simpler; inmates who recover are returned to prison to serve
out their terms, and those whose sentences have expired are retained so
long as they continue insane. This excerpt verifies that these criminals are
not just going free that they are in fact serving their time whether it is in a
prison or a psychiatric institution receiving the help and care theyre illness
required. Furthermore, In Criminality, Insanity and the Law by Benjamin
Karpman it is again pointed out the such individuals are to be sent to a
hospital for the insane for confinement and treatment. For the rest, criminals
are viewed as mentally normal, fully responsible people who commit crimes
out of sheer viciousness and that punishment is the proper method of
dealing with these situations. This article is another testament to how
criminals and mentally ill offenders should be dealt with. Another highlighted
quote in this paper is that criminality is a disease and criminals can be
cured. This quote is enlightening because Karpmans take on this situation is
that whether mentally ill or not each individual criminal can be treated and
cured. This is a refreshing statement because it illuminates the idea that
society and the courts focus too much on whether the defendant is actually
mentally ill or not when the should rather be focusing on which is the best
way to proceed in rehabilitating these criminally ill individuals. Karpan says
I belong to the small group of psychiatrists who hold the thesis that
criminality is without exception symptomatic of abnormal mental states and

is an expression of them. Essentially he is arguing that every criminal is


within a abnormal mental state when committing a crime because no
upstanding, normal, balanced person of society would casually commit a
crime therefor whether chronic or momentarily, every criminal should be
considered mentally incapable and sentenced accordingly.
So the question arises as to how you prove a defendant is actually
legally insane. Different states have different requirements such as the two
documented certificates Texas requires as proof, previously stated in this
paper. In the article Proving Insanity Beyond A Reasonable Doubt: Leland vs
The State of Oregon it talks about the main problem the public has with the
insanity plea and how it played out in the specific case of Leland v. State or
Oregon. For example, it starts one of the more perplexing problems in the
administration of criminal justice is the determination of mental capacity,
which is speaking to the fact of how you would administer a test and then
virtually determine one as legally insane. Additionally, it states the main
issue that a fundamental notion of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence is that a
harm committed as a result of a serious mental disease is not a crime. This
is, as explained, is the most saturated topic surrounding the insanity plea
debate. So to answer the question of how to determine if a defendant is
indeed mentally illthus nonresponsible-- this article offers that the
method for determining whether the criminally accused was mentally
responsible at the time the harm was committed has been to submit the

question to the juryit transforms an essentially non-legal inquiry into a


partisan battle of wits between medical experts and lawyers. This part of
the article is very important because it brings to light another serious issue
with the insanity plea, essentially, is someone being mentally ill beyond a
reasonable doubt even something you can actually prove? Furthermore, this
article includes the case of Leland vs the State of Oregon, a case in which
the Supreme Court upheld that a state rule demanding the defendant to
prove insanity beyond a reasonable doubt did not violate the due process
clause of the fourteenth amendment. Traditionally in the court of law, while
trying a case, the defense doesnt have anything to prove, typically the
burden of proof lays on the prosecutions shoulders, meaning that the
prosecution has to prove the defense is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In
the case of Leland Vs The State of Oregon it is said that not only the
prosecution carries this burden, but in the circumstance that a defendant is
pleading not guilty by reason of insanity than the defense now similarly
carries a burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant
was not capable of understanding right from wrong nor what the
consequences of his actions would be during the the time of the crime.
At the heart of this debate the vital information is that criminals are
not getting off scott free, the acquitted are serving time equivalent or
exceeding to which they would have been sentenced to in jail, the insanity
plea is very overestimated at how often is is claimed, and especially at how

often it is actually approved. Thus, considering all the aspects and


testaments to this topic, overall it seems that the insanity plea is in fact a
valid defense as long as there is some precedent law explaining the
requirements and qualifications necessary to accurately and genuinely prove
a legitimate case of ones mental capacity, vulnerability, and total judgment
capabilities at or before the time the crime was committed. As long as these
guidelines are respected and upheld then justice should be considered
carried out and each individual will get the punishment or treatment that has
been adapted to equip them with the essential tools and environment to be
beneficial to the individual in every case.

Work cited page

Silver, Eric, Carmen Cirincione, and Henry J. Steadman. Demythologizing


Inaccurate Perceptions of the Insanity Defense. Law and Human

Behavior 18.1 (1994): 6370. Web...


Criminal Incompetency. Criminal Incompetency. Mental and Physical

Disability Law Reporter 34.1 (2010): 4454. Web...


Linkon, Gordon. Proving Insanity Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Leland V.
State of Oregon. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police
Science 43.4 (1952): 482485. Web...
Criminal Insanity and the Law. Criminal Insanity and the Law. Journal of
the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology 2.1 (1911): 113

115. Web...
Karpman, Benjamin. Criminality, Insanity and the Law. Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology (1931-1951) 39.5 (1949): 584605. Web...

You might also like