Using Insanity as a Legal Defense, Research Paper Example

In the field of legal matters, there are some cases like rape, murder, or robbery with violence where people believe that the criminal involved are insane. People who are engaged in these crimes without remorse must be having loose screws in their brains. For these criminals to be judged for their acts, the juries must first establish whether these people have sound mental capacity to justify their intents (Harman 67). This means that the prosecutor should allow time for the criminal to be accessed. Without intent, the case will not continue. The perpetrator will go to a mental institution to gain stability before returning to the society. This is what legal insanity is, and it is extremely challenging to verify. For the judge to prove the criminal is legally insane, a mental disorder has to be detected and proved beyond doubt that it was the one that led him/her to do the crime.

Many a times, legal insanity determination, is based on a 730 exam administered by the court. This exam is set by a state-appointed psychologist with the aim of determining whether the defendants have the ability to stand trial for their crimes or know whether the legal insanity defense has any worth before the court of law (Katz, Michael, & Stephen 103). It is also possible for the attorney to choose a psychologist to determine legal insanity. After the establishment, it is upon the jury to decide whether the defense of the prosecutor is right by checking on the testimony given by both private and state psychologist.

Using insanity as a legal defense is a practice that applies to a number of sensitive cases. A good example is in the trial of John Hinckley, who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. He used insanity as a legal defense and won the case. Ever since then, most states have revised their take on legal insanity. It has now been narrowed down to mental disorders and diseases that have merit in a court of law. Legal insanity has become a subject of legal and public scrutiny since it is a foundation of jury nullification. There are a number of cases where talented fake liars have capitalized on legal insanity to get away with their crimes. Even though, psychologists are experts who can detect slight defection of perception, some of these criminals have managed to slip through the cracks (Winslade & Judith 134).

There are incidences where using insanity as a legal defense has been abused by the attorneys of defendants. These attorneys have taken it as a desperate measure to have their clients walk out to freedom. The fact that insanity can be taken to mean “not guilty” has seen criminals walk free from a mental facility as soon as the doctors recommend so. In the court of law, legal insanity is a gamble (Harman 134). Despite this view, many attorneys are still willing to try it. If it is used and the criminal walks free, the disease or defect is set as a precedent to gauge future crimes. In the modern world, most states are slowly accepting road rage as a mental defect. Many psychologists have taken the time to research on this aspect and found it fit to be included in the legal insanity list. However, if the defendant is proved to have done vehicular manslaughter, the case will be different. The repercussions will be terrible.

Legal insanity is a law that traces its foundation to United States. In some cases, this legal suit is genuine as some people need to be treated rather than being punished in the cells. The state laws consider it inhuman and cruel to place a mentally ill person in prison. Yes, the victims may have committed violent crimes that deserve a tough punishment, but then the law offers them some protection (Katz, Michael, & Stephen 176).

In a court of law, cognitive insanity is considered the most viable variation. In cognitive insanity test, the defendants should prove that they were impaired by a mental defect when the act of the crime they are facing took place. In such a case, he/she was not aware of the nature of the act, and he/she did not know if it was wrong. For this reason, most states in America have allowed the courts to call up cognitive insanity defense. Volitional insanity can also be used in legal defense. In this instance, the defendant even though, he/she has the ability to differentiate between right and wrong, at the time of the act he or she had a mental defect or disease which made him or her fail to control his acts (Rogers 75). A good example is where a mother brutally assaults a child through shooting. In this case, the mother can argue that she was enraged to an extent of mental disorder and failed to control herself. However, it is good to note that volitional insanity defense is allowed in limited states.

It is beneficial for people to avoid confusing legal insanity defense with incompetency. Normally, people who prove to be incompetent in court are given time to go and compose themselves before they come back. This legal defense is also different from mental retardation. What this law seeks is to ensure that people who cannot appreciate the results of their actions are not punished for the crimes committed (Winslade & Judith 111). For this reason, most states have regulated this law. In making the judgment, the defense needs to be present and produce sufficient evidence on the day of trial. The only evidence that can cement the theory is testimony from experts like psychiatrists and psychologists.

Many people do ask if there is a need to use insanity as a legal defense. This is something debatable. However, it can play a leading role when it comes to determining the verdict of a criminal case. It is a controversial issue that has raised many questions especially when people judged with murder cases are set free by being insane. For instance when John Hinckley was set free after shooting President Regan, there was a public outcry. This is what sparked the debate challenging this legal suit and if it should be allowed in the courts of law (Rogers 143).

Ever since insanity as a legal defense came into use, the public has come out to give its view over the same. Even though, about 2% of criminal defendants invoke these means of defense, its outcome is rather heartbreaking especially on the side of the people seeking justice. People who seek freedom through insanity and fail face a longer jail term. From statistics, about 20% of the defendants who plead insanity are released (Harman 125). This is a clear indication that, at one point, the prosecutor will see the plea as appropriate.

Using insanity as a legal defense has made criminals engage in activities thinking they can avoid punishment by faking insanity. They need to know that this is a risky defense. There is a lot involved in such cases, and for one to pull through, a lot of conviction is needed. Prove of lack of compulsion control is needed. This legal suit will not be applied on a person who willingly consumes abusive drugs and then engage in criminal acts. This is the same to people who can control their mental disorder using drugs but fails to do the same (Rogers 187).

There are substantial arguments against using insanity as a legal defense. Many people see it as a defense which surpasses moral and societal ethics. This criminal law takes into consideration the effects of crime at the expense of moral imperatives to the society. People tend to argue that a person who commits a crime should be sentenced without considering insanity. They are of the opinion that if this same person is left walking freely, he/she can commit another crime. If he or she cannot be imprisoned in a cell, then a hospital prison should be taken as an alternative. Many critics argue that this defense strategy is for the rich. The cost of carrying out psychiatrist tests is unusually high; hence poor people cannot afford (Winslade & Judith 98). When this happens, the rights of the poor are violated. They are not given justice because of money; hence critics are contending that the use of insanity in legal defense should be abolished.

Work cited

Harman, Donald . The insanity defense: philosophical, historical, and legal perspectives. 3rd edition ed. Michigan: Thomas, 2010. Print. 66-135

Katz, Leo, Michael S. Moore, and Stephen J. Morse. Foundations of criminal law. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print. 102-178

Montaldo, Charles. “Insanity Defense – The Insanity Defense in Criminal Cases.” Crime and Punishment Home Page. N.p., 8 July 2009. Web. 18 Mar. 2013. http://crime.about.com/od/issues/a/insanity.htm

Rogers, Richard. Conducting insanity evaluations. 2nd edition ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 2000. Print. 70-190

Winslade, William J., and Judith Wilson Ross. The insanity plea. 2nd edition ed. New York: Scribner, 2003. Print. 97-135