Ardines 1 Angelica M. Ardines Dr.

Guenzel ENC 1102-Section 0014 March 21, 2014

A Further View on the Insanity Verdict on Trial The insanity defense is the most controversial defense in the criminal justice system. A defendant can plea insanity, if at the time that the crime was committed the persons mental health was damaged to the point where they didnt know the nature of what they were doing, or could not distinguish between right and wrong. Researchers have traced it back to the nineteenth century. It was created as a response to a controversial case in 1843, when Daniel McNaughton killed the secretary of the prime minister of England, Robert Peel. McNaughtons plan was to kill the prime minister himself, but he confused the two men. He was tried and acquitted on the grounds that he believed the government was plotting against him. The publics negative reactions lead the court system to come up with is now known as the McNaughton rule (par. 4). In the article The Insanity Verdict on Trial by Scott O. Lilienfeld and Hal Arkowitz, we can see, from an expert point of view, why the insanity defense can be deemed as justifiable. Scott O. Lilienfeld is a psychology professor at Emory University and Hal Arkowitz is a psychology professor at the University of Arizona. Theyre also in the board of advisors of the magazine that published the article originally, Scientific American Mind. By mentioning their credentials the authors make use of the ethical appeal, which s gives the reader some confidence on what they read, if they questioned the authors knowledge on the subject. Their persona is professional, and they develop the topic in a well-organized manner. The authors make use of many methods of writing, especially examples, as a way to develop the counter argument. First they explain the case of a former nurse, Andrea Yates, who

Ardines 2 drowned her five children after claiming that Satan was after them, so she needed to kill them to protect them; Yates was acquitted due to insanity. They do not hesitate to mention Andrea Yates first. This serves as an attention catcher, but also as a way of persuasion; the authors assume that the reader will be able to tell that Yates wasnt mentally healthy, and therefore shouldnt be tried as someone who is. The publics opining about the acquittal of John W. Hinckley, Jr. is presented as another example. Hinckley was tried for the attempted assassination of President Reagan, but was acquitted on the grounds of delusion. According to the article, 76 percent of the public believed Hinckley should have been convicted (par. 2). By giving this statistic, the authors show that they are aware of the publics skepticism on the insanity defense. Furthermore, two counter arguments are introduced, making note of not just the views of the authors, but also the opposing views. This makes their argument stronger, for theres ground to present evidence and support the argument. First, the authors analyze the belief that criminals who are acquitted on the grounds of insanity get away with their terrible actions without any consequence, and the belief that the insanity defense is overused. They note that the insanity defense is rarely used, and typically fails (par. 3). Actually, only 1 percent of cases involve the insanity defense, and only 15 to 25 percent of those cases succeed in acquitting the defendant (par. 9). They also mention that the person who is acquitted on the grounds of insanity usually ends up serving the same sentence as those convicted, only that they end up in a mental institution instead of a prison. Second, the authors analyze the skeptics belief that those who commit a crime should be found guilty, but if they are found mentally ill they should be given a lesser sentence. To this the authors mention steps some states have taken to deem someone guilty but mentally ill. Guilty but mentally ill means that the defendant is found guilty of the crime committed, but if they are found to have been mentally ill at the time that the crime was committed they will be given the proper

Ardines 3 rehabilitation. Even though these criminals are supposed to receive some sort of rehabilitation, none of the states that have implemented the guilty but mentally ill rule have found a proper way to rehabilitate them. This rule hasnt been very helpful at all, for it doesnt make insanity acquittals clear cut. By presenting counterarguments the authors used a method we discussed earlier, the Rogerian Argument. Lilienfeld and Arkowitz develop their arguments based on the counterargument, they demonstrate knowledge of both the pros and cons of the insanity plea. They explain to the reader why the popular beliefs on the insanity defense arent quite justifiable by noting these beliefs and then offering evidence to refute them. The authors also make use of pathos, or emotional appeal, by the kind of diction they choose. They begin very early in the article to use emotional appeal. By noting that Andrea Yates had a history of postpartum depression (para. 1) before mentioning the crime she committed (drowning her five children), the authors make the reader feel some compassion for the defendant due to the history of her mental health struggles. They also mention that Yates attorneys were backed by expert testimony (para. 1). By mentioning that the defense argument was supported or backed by experts the authors give the reader a feeling of confidence and reassurance. They make it clear that it was alright to feel compassion and agree with the acquittal of Yates, because it wasnt a made up scenarioexperts were supporting the argument. On paragraph 2 Lilienfeld and Arkowitz write that the insanity defense is designed to protect people who, due to their mental illnesses, were incapable of controlling their actions or couldnt tell between right or wrong. They also say that the insanity defense helps these people. By using the word protect and help the authors tried to make the readers feel pity for these peoplethey make them sound defenseless. When they continue to the counter argument, they referred to letting the defendants free as [dumping] dangerous felons (para. 3). By using the word dump, the authors discredit the critics who oppose the insanity defense.

Ardines 4 When we use the word dumping we refer to getting rid of trash and waste. To use the word dumping to refer to a human being seems quite inhuman, which makes the reader feel compassion for those pleading insanity. Despite this factor, the authors called those opposing their views critics. Using the word critics shows respect for those who dont share their views. This is appealing to the reader because the authors dont sound like theyre trying to impose their views; rather they are taking into account every part of the argument. Moreover, Lilienfeld and Arkowitz make their argument stronger by indirectly identifying fallacies in the arguments of those who oppose the insanity defense. They note how most people believe the insanity defense is widely used and take advantage of it. This hasty generalization is due to the wide publicity cases involving the insanity defense receive, they claim. The authors mention other known cases to show how these criminals who pled insanity failed and were convicted (par. 9). Oversimplification was also a fallacy committed by the opponents of the insanity defense. The article mentions the opinion of a radio talk show host, in reference to the Andrea Yates case. He expresses: A few years of treatment in a mental hospital, then presto! Shes all better now, free to be released into an unsuspecting public. Lilienfeld and Arkowitz explain how it is not as simple as just getting a few years of rehabilitation and then being released (par. 10). Yates had actually being in a mental institution for more than four years after she had been acquitted (the article was written in 2010). So Yates like many other defendants acquitted on the grounds of insanity, the authors claim, are held for a long period of time until they are fully rehabilitated (para. 10). Lastly, despite being written four years ago, the article is still relevant to the current discussion on the insanity defense. The authors make note of very important cases developed at different time periods, making note of the fact that the insanity defense has always been a controversial topic. They also write the article as an ongoing argument. It wasnt written to

Ardines 5 defend a decision that has already been made, but rather to defend an issue that is still waiting on a decision to be made. There is strong bias towards the insanity defense in the article despite the mention counterarguments. Actually by making note of the counterarguments and their fallacies, Lilienfeld and Arkowitz build a strong argument in defense of the insanity defense while discrediting their opponents. Also, their credibility as professionals on the field of psychology give the reader confidence on the truthfulness of what it is been read. Furthermore, the authors incorporate research data to give their argument more credibility and make their article a lot more trusted. Their use of pathos helped them give the reader another perspective on this controversial topic, by creating feelings of sympathy and compassion. Despite their bias, as readers, we get the chance to compare the pros and cons of the insanity defense, and see it through different lenses.

Ardines 6

Works Cited Lilienfeld, Scott O., and Hal Arkowitz. The Insanity Verdict On Trial: The Insanity Defense, Rarely Used, Is Widely Misunderstood. scientificamerican.com. Scientific American, 23 Dec. 2010. Web. 9 March 2014.