Ashley Michael

Professor Thomas
English 1104
29 November 2016

Imagine this. Youre sitting in a courtroom about to witness the trial of the malicious man
who tried to destroy your sons life. The trial is about to begin as the thirty-two-year-old, Bruco
Eastwood, enters the room. Theres nothing really stunning about his appearance. You first notice
his long, shaggy, tangled mane accompanied by an unshaven stubbly beard worn just below his
bottom lip. The fluorescent orange jumpsuit he is forced to wear is almost too painful to look at.
His pale complexion looks detrimental. Not that you expected him to look healthy prior to
storming through Dear Creek Middle School with an armed rifle deviously plotting to take out a
handful of their innocent students. Eastwood has pleaded not-guilty-by-insanity but youre
praying he gets what he deserves. After the final arguments the jury leaves the courtroom to
discuss the fate of Bruco Eastwood. It is now all up to them. The nervousness is setting in. Small
droplets of sweat form above your top lip, your legs tremble and your hands clam up. The jury
reenters the courtroom and the buzz of conversation comes to a halt. Everyone is intrigued, the
insanity plea is not known for being successful. The presiding juror begins to speak. You cannot
believe the words that come out of his mouth. They found him to be not-guilty-by-insanity. Your
heart drops to the floor; this news makes you physically sick. How can someone who shot your
twelve-year-old son, leaving him with broken ribs and a punctured lung not end up in prison? No
one was killed but justice should still be served. Eastwood was diagnosed as a schizophrenic and
put into a mental institution. He claimed he heard voices and reported imaginary creatures were

stealing food from his stomach. This is apparently an excuse to barge into a school and attempt
murder. What a load of bullshit.
Mental illness and crime is an extremely controversial subject. On one hand, there are
those who believe all criminals should be punished, no matter what the circumstances are. On the
other hand, some think the mentally ill should always be treated for their disorder. In hopes to
resolve this conflict the insanity defense was created. Those who successfully plea as insane are
sent to mental hospitals instead of prison in order to receive treatment. They are held there until
their doctor believes they are no longer at risk of harming themselves or those around them. In
these cases, the defendant is not held responsible for his or her actions because they have been
found to be legally insane therefore not able to control their wrongdoings. Many people believe
the insanity defense is just used as an excuse so they don't end up in prison. Sadly, there are
many cases in which this is true.
The insanity defense is one of the most controversial and misunderstood issues -- but it's
much ado about nothing, explains the medical director of the American Academy of Psychiatry
and the Law, Jonas R. Rappeport. The insanity defense has become such a big deal in our society
but not many people know how insignificant it really is when looking at it in a statistical
standpoint. During a study within eight states criminal cases were observed. Only one percent of
these cases used a plea of insanity. Within that one percent only about a twenty-five percent were
successful. Although it does affect many people and isnt always fair, society has caused it to
unnecessarily blow up.
The insanity defense dates back to the thirteenth century. Prosecutors who showed signs
of being mad were given the choice to plea insane. This was not as common in this day of time
though. If the insanity defense won, the prosecutor would be sent to a mental institution where

they would receive treatment. These hospitals were nearly as bad as spending years in prison, if
not worse. They would use a series of extremely unethical treatments in order to cure their
patients. One of the earliest forms of treatment is known as trephination. This is basically a hole
that is drilled into the patients head in order to rid them of any demonic possession which may
be causing their mental illness. Other harsh treatments that were used include electroshock
therapy, isolation, restraints and lobotomies (sticking an icepick through the nose and into the
brain in order to rewire the prefrontal lobe, resulting in a new personality.)
Now that mental hospitals are significantly more pleasant many people have questioned
prosecutors who have been thought to fake a mental illness in order to avoid prison. This has
caused quite an uproar in American society. A well-known psychiatry critic, Thomas Szasz,
states,
Although it is impossible to fake having a mental illness, it is possible, indeed it is quite
easy, to assume the role of mental patient by acting crazy. Since a person who acts crazy
is usually regarded as crazy or having a mental illness, it is, ipso facto, impossible to
distinguish a person who is crazy from one who only pretends to be crazy.
I find this statement to be true because there have actually been cases in which the defendant has
admitted to their insanity stance as simply being an act.
David Berkowitz had been brought to trial for murder after randomly shooting six people
in the street. He claimed his neighbors demonic dog had ordered him to commit the crime
throughout a series of barking. According to a psychiatric exam he suffered from paranoia and
delusions. He decided to plea as insane, but was unsuccessful. A little over a year later he
confessed to making up the entire story about the dog. His delusions had obviously been a lie but
there was still some controversy as to whether he was criminally insane or vice versa. You have

to have some degree of madness within you in order to decide to brutally murder a random
bunch of strangers. As Szasz previously stated a person who acts crazy is usually regarded as
crazy. Therefore, Berkowitz had to have been suffering from some type of mental disorder to
some extent.
Usually an individual who is convicted of manslaughter due to drinking and driving
would be sentenced to 1-4 years in prison. In the trial of Ethan Couch this was not the case. The
sixteen-year-old killed four people and seriously injured two in 2013 during a collision while
driving under the influence. He was found to be suffering from a condition called affluenza.
This mental illness affects many younger individuals who have come from wealthier families.
They are said to have never learned right from wrong because their parents have allowed them to
get away with pretty much anything they desired. Because of Couchs mental illness he was only
sentenced to ten years of probation. The judge believed Couch could be treated with
rehabilitation and isolation from his parents in order to cure his illness. Those effected by the
crime, as well as others, were infuriated. The psychologist who diagnosed Couch regrets his
decision tremendously. G. Dick Miller expresses this by stating, I wish I hadn't used that term
[affluenza]. Everyone seems to have hooked onto it. We used to call these people spoiled brats.
For the most part the American population believes affluenza is fake. It just blames the
parents for the childs actions. As Im sure Ethan Couch was well educated, he probably knew
drinking and driving, as well as murder, probably wasnt the right thing to do. The wealthy
parents could have easily paid the psychologist or judge to get their loving son out of his own
responsibilities. It just doesnt make sense that these people suffering from affluenza are able to
continuously get away with their wrong-doings. Wouldnt it make more sense to teach him/her a
lesson in order to break the nasty habits they possess? They know they are able to get away with

whatever they want so they are probably going to continue to do illegal things. A reoccurring
cycle will most likely take place until things eventually spiral out of control.
Suniya S., a psychology professor at Arizona State University, wrote a blog post titled
"Sometimes 'poor little rich kids' are really poor little rich kids." Throughout
her post she argues, The children of the affluent are becoming increasingly troubled,
reckless, and self-destructive. She incorporates an immense amount of reasons as to
why affluenza is a real thing. He includes the fact that they have a greater
exposure to things such as marijuana, alcohol and sex which is abused,
causing their rebellion. Suniyas blog did have good points explaining why all kids may
show rebellion, but most children, privileged as well as underprivileged, are exposed to these
things. Both of these groups should be able to get away with the things they do while being
influenced by them.
Many individuals actually dont believe any mental illnesses are real. There is a widerange of people who believe mental diseases are only in the individuals head. They think that
psychiatry has sold the idea that these behaviors society correlates as mentally ill are only false
perceptions. This is done simply to endorse and sell drugs used to cure said diseases. Dr. David
Kaiser, a psychiatrist explains his opinions on the subject:
modern psychiatry has yet to convincingly prove the genetic/biologic cause of any
single mental illnessPatients [have] been diagnosed with chemical imbalances despite
the fact that no test exists to support such a claim, andthere is no real conception of
what a correct chemical balance would look like.
Could mental disorders just be a bunch of mind games? I find this to be somewhat unlikely but
does make a lot of sense. There really is no physical proof of mental disorders such as depression

and anxiety which really makes you think. The insanity defense would not be viable at all if this
were the case. Many of these criminals could very well be getting away with things such as
murder and rape because of something that may not even be real.
In order to keep the defendant from simply faking a mental disorder a series of tests and
rules have been put into place in certain states. This includes the M'Naghten Rule (used by North
Carolina); the Irresistible Impulse test; the Durham Rule; and the Model Penal Code test (MCP).
The rule most frequently used is the MCP. It is a text which was created in 1962 by the American
Law Institute. It addresses four perspectives of mens rea, or criminal intent: purpose, knowledge,
recklessness and negligence. The MCP is much broader than the others hence creating a
guideline fit for almost every criminal. The MNaghten rule was established in the nineteenth
century by the English House of Lords. The rule states that:
Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and ... that to establish a defense on the ground
of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the
party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, and not
to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did
not know he was doing what was wrong."
The rules primary focus is to determine whether the defendant was aware of the difference
between right and wrong at the time the crime was committed. Some people believe the rule
doesnt distinguish between those who are only temporarily ill and individuals who suffer from
lifelong illness. Because of this controversy the Irresistible impulse test was created by the
Alabama Supreme court in 1887. This states that the defendant will not be found guilty if he/she
had absolutely no control over their actions and was unable to withstand the impulse to commit
the crime. Although there is much controversy within these three tests they still continue to be

used in various states. The Durham rule, however, is only used in New Hampshire, where it
originated in 1871. It expresses that if a crime has been committed due to a mental illness the
defendant wont be convicted of the crime. It doesnt require a medical diagnosis or mental
examination. The Durham rule is not liked by most individuals because it is so broad. There is an
obvious downside to each of these tests. It is almost impossible to please everyone which is why
there is a number of different variations.
It is really sad there are so many individuals who are able to get away with certain
violations because of the insanity defense. Many people who usually arent very wealthy with
severe disorders such as schizophrenia, delusional disorders or other mental health problems are
thrown into prison. These individuals are usually incarcerated due to minor offences mainly
because no one really knows what to do with them or they just dont want to deal with them.
Their trial is usually out of their control due to their illness so they can easily be taken advantage
of. Once they are sentenced to prison thy dont get the treatment they need and his or her illness
begins to worsen. Some experts say most crimes committed by the mentally ill are not committed
because of their illness. It usually has more to do with other factors such as drug or alcohol
abuse.
Kevin DeMott had suffered from a bipolar-disorder since age eleven. When he was
thirteen-years-old he attempted to rob a pizza place with a toy gun and was sentenced to juvy. He
was then moved to prison at fifteen where he was held in solitary confinement for four months.
Being in this environment caused him to become very depressed. He broke lightbulbs to cut
himself with and attempted to commit suicide. No one ever did anything to better his situation.
DeMotts story really is heart-breaking. He had no control over the situation which had to be a
terrifying thing to face, especially at an age that young.

Debate over things like the insanity defense and other issues pertaining mental illness and
crime will probably never go away. Everyone has different opinions so it is impossible to make
each individual happy. No matter how hard psychologists, doctors, lawyers and other individuals
involved try to create fairness for everyone, someone is always going argue, because that is just
what humans do.

Work Cited
Clark, Charles S. "Mental Illness." CQ Researcher 6 Aug. 1993: 673-96. Web. 29 Nov. 2016.
Ford, Dana. "'Affluenza' Defense Psychologist: 'I Wish I Hadn't Used That Term'" CNN. Cable
News Network, n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2016.
Glazer, Sarah. "Prisoners and Mental Illness." CQ Researcher 13 Mar. 2015: 241-64.
Web. 29 Nov. 2016.
Gray, Madison, and Madison Gray. "The Affluenza Defense: Judge Rules Rich Kids Rich Kidness Makes Him Not Liable for Deadly Drunk Driving Accident | TIME.com." Time. Time, n.d.
Web. 29 Nov. 2016.
Jost, Kenneth. "The Jury System." CQ Researcher 10 Nov. 1995: 993-1016. Web. 29 Nov. 2016.
"Irresistible Impulse Test." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2016.
Martin, John P. "The Insanity Defense: A Closer Look." Washington Post. The Washington Post,
27 Feb. 1998. Web. 29 Nov. 2016.
PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2016.
"Real Disease vs. Mental Disorder." Citizens Commission on Human Rights. N.p., n.d. Web. 29
Nov. 2016.
S., Suniya, and Luther Barry. "Sometimes poor Little Rich Kids Really Are Poor Little Rich
Kids." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 5 Jan. 2016. Web. 29 Nov. 2016.
"The." Findlaw. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2016.
Wallace, Kelly. "'Affluenza': The Challenges of Growing up Wealthy." CNN. Cable News
Network, n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2016.
Weinberg, Steve. "Wrongful Convictions." CQ Researcher 17 Apr. 2009: 345-72. Web. 29 Nov.
2016.