Running Head: THE INSANITY DEFENSE
The Insanity Defense: Acquittal, Conviction, and their Intersection
Angelica M. Ardines
ENC 1102-Section 0014
Dr. Steffen Guenzel
April 16, 2014
THE INSANITY DEFENSE
2
Abstract
The insanity defense is the most controversial defense in the justice system. In this paper I will
examine three different perspectives: those who completely oppose the insanity defense and
call for convicting individuals who plea the insanity defense; those who support the insanity
defense and call for acquitting individuals who plea the insanity defense; and the verdict of
guilty but mentally ill, which serve as the intersection between the two perspective mentioned
before. Many people have formed opinions on this defense based on misconceptions and thus
they favor the abolishment of the insanity plea. Yet, despite its controversy and the
misconceptions formed the insanity defense has been proven to be an important tool used in
the justice system to uphold certain principles of criminal law.
THE INSANITY DEFENSE
3
The Insanity Defense: Acquittal, Conviction, and their Intersection
Introduction
Andrea Yates, is a former nurse accused of drowning her five children in a bathtub.
When asked why she did it Yates said that “she was being persecuted by Satan and needed to
protect her children from eternal damnation by killing them” (Lilienfeld & Arkowitz, 2010).
Her verdict was deemed as an outrageous decision: she was found not guilty by reasons of
insanity. Andrea Yates had a history of severe postpartum depression, and this fact alone
played a huge role in finding her legally insane.
The insanity defense is one of the most controversial defenses in the criminal justice
system of the United States. It is defined as,
A defense asserted by an accused in a criminal prosecution to avoid liability for the
commission of a crime because, at the time of the crime, the person did not appreciate
the nature or quality or wrongfulness of the acts. (“Insanity Defense”, 2008)
This ambiguous definition has led to complicated state statutes on how and under what
circumstances to apply the insanity defense. In fact four states—Utah, Montana, Idaho, and
Kansas—have banned it completely (Lilienfeld & Arkowitz, 2010). Due to the nature of its
controversy the public has formed opinions based on myths that have worsen the
understanding of the defense.
Moreover, the insanity defense is not to be confused with incompetency to stand trial. A
defendant is incompetent to stand trial if they cannot understand that he’s been tried and
cannot tell the roles of the prosecutors, defense attorneys, and the judge. The insanity defense
takes into account the mental health of the defendant at the time of the crime while
competency takes into account mental health at the time of the trial. Furthermore, when the
defendant pleas insanity they are either acquitted or convicted; but if the defendant is found to
be incompetent to stand trial there is no trial proceeding, the defendant is then to receive
THE INSANITY DEFENSE
4
proper treatment, and after being deemed competent they come back to court to receive a
proper trial. (“Insanity Defense FAQs”, n.d.).
Background: When and How Did the Insanity Defense Come to Be?
Mentally ill individuals have been at the center of controversy and misunderstanding.
During medieval times these individuals were thought to be possessed by demons and were left
alone in dungeons. Often times they were burned at the stakes. This became even more
apparent during the thirteenth century, the time of the Inquisition1 in Europe. Soon people
began to question these measures and decided it was important to treat people who seem
different from the rest and seem to have unexplainable behaviors. This led the ruling class of
England to take measurements and soon they created England’s first mental hospital, Priory of
St. Mary of Bethlehem Hospital, in London. However, at first the hospital admitted all kinds of
patients; but around 1403 the hospital began to admit only mentally ill patients. This hospital
was associated with “punishment and religious devotion” (“From Bethlehem to Bedlam”). Its
terrible conditions became a source of entertainment for the upper class of England. During
this century the English Lord Bracton established one of the first definitions of insanity. He
explained that some people did not know what they were doing and this led them to act in a
manner not too different from a brute. This then became the basic of what was known as the
“wild beast standard.” Anybody who used this defense had to prove to the court that they had
the minimum understanding of a wild animal or infant. This went on until 1843, when Daniel
M'Naghten assassinated the prime minister’s secretary, Edward Drummond, an event that
would change the insanity defense in the court systems of the world.
Daniel M’Naghten shot and killed Edward Drummond, secretary to Prime Minister of
England Sir Robert Peel. M’Naghten believed the prime minister was plotting against him, but
1
According to http://www.merriam-webster.com the Inquisition was “an organization in the Roman Catholic
Church in the past that was responsible for finding and punishing people who did not accept its beliefs and
practices.”
THE INSANITY DEFENSE
5
instead of killing the prime minister he mistakenly killed his secretary. Once in trial
M’Naghten’s attorneys plead acquaintance because the defendant was clearly insane and had
no understanding of what he was doing. He was in fact acquitted of the crime2, a decision that
stir the public. The House of Lords issued a ruling that read,
To establish a defense on the ground of insanity it must clearly be proven that, at the
time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of
reason, from disease of the mind, as 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 was wrong. (Gado,
n.d.)
This became known as the M’Naghten Rule, and for over a century it became the standard for
the insanity defense (Gado, n.d.).
According to pbs.org twenty-six states still use the M’Naghten Rule as a standard in
their courts. However, these states have modified the rule to include irresistible impulses. In
1962, the American Law Institute (A.L.I.) created what is known as the Model Standard. It
declares that a defendant can plea insanity,
If at the time of his conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial
capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to
the requirements of law. (Insanity defense FAQs, n.d.)
Twenty-two states use the A.L.I. rule as their standard for the insanity defense.
Conviction and how it is affected by Insanity Defense’s Misconceptions
The ambiguity of the insanity defense has led many critics to refute it, and this has also
affected the general public. However, many of their arguments are based on misconceptions
rather than factual information. These misconceptions are going beyond shaping public
opinion to actually shaping the verdict of the jurors in trials involving the insanity defense.
2
M’Naghten was sent to Bedlam and then to other mental institutions, where he didn’t receive proper treatment,
due to the standards of the time, and died in 1863 (Gado, n.d.)
THE INSANITY DEFENSE
6
According to Louden and Skeem (2007), jurors with negative attitudes towards the insanity
defense are less likely to find a defendant insane. This creates a biased that could potentially
hurt mentally ill defendants that do not receive the appropriate treatment.
Daftary-Kapur, Groscup, O'Connor, Coffaro, and Galietta (2011) identified and studied
eight different misconceptions about insanity:
1. The insanity defense is overused.
It is not uncommon for the public to believe that the insanity defense is
overused. However, research throughout the years have shown the opposite. In reality
the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all felony cases. For example, in a study
conducted by Janofsky, Vandewalle, and Rappeport (1989), they recorded data during
a twelve month period in Baltimore City Circuit Court and found that of the 11,497
defendants indicted, 143 plead insanity—only a 1.2% of the cases pleaded insanity.
Daftary-Kapur et al (2011) reported that respondents believed that 37% in a sample of
1000 cases used the insanity defense. In fact, from the sample of 1000 cases only five
pleaded insanity (as cited in Pasewark & Seidenzahl, 1979).
2. Defendants who plead insanity are usually faking.
Another misconception held by the general public is that it is easy for
defendants to trick the courts into believing they are insane. Janofsky et al. (1989)
found that of the 143 cases who pled insanity only 38% were thought to be possibly
insane. 28% of the defendants that were in fact referred for further evaluation were
found not criminally responsible. It is hard to “trick” the justice system into believing
that someone is insane. These individual usually have to go through several
professionals before they can be found legally insane.
THE INSANITY DEFENSE
7
3. Pleading NGRI (Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity) is a strategy used by defense attorneys
to get their clients acquitted.
Despite popular believe, attorneys have a hard task to successfully get their
clients acquitted by reason of insanity. Janofsky et al. (1989) further their findings by
identifying that defendants dropped the insanity plea in all but 16 cases; three of these
cases failed to acquit; one of the thirteen remaining cases dropped the insanity defense
because of “technical legal issues.” Only two of the twelve cases successfully held an
insanity defense, and only one of them was found not criminally responsible. The NGRI
verdict is very complicated; most defendants choose to drop the insanity defense.
4. The insanity defense is used almost exclusively in cases that involve violent crimes.
Daftary-Kapur et al. (2011) observes that opponents of the insanity defense who
believe that the insanity defense involves violent crimes for the most part hold this view
due to the highly publicized trials involving the insanity defense (as cited in Steadman,
Mulvey, & Monahan, 1998). The insanity defense can involve cases ranging from
shoplifting to assault from the most part. It is a misconception to believe that it solely
involve cases involving murders for the most part.
5. There is no risk to the defendant who pleads insanity.
The no risk misconception is highly noted by supporters of the insanity defense.
Unlike popular belief, people who plead insanity usually serve longer sentences than
those who do not plea insanity. Daftary-Kapur et al. (2011) asserts that those
defendants who unsuccessfully pled insanity serve a sentence 22% longer than those
who did not use the insanity defense (as cited in Braff, Arvanites, & Steadman, 1983).
Jurors see this as the defendant trying to escape punishment, therefore they should be
sentenced with longer periods of time.
THE INSANITY DEFENSE
8
6. NGRI acquittees spend much less time in custody than do defendants convicted of the
same offense.
Research conducted by Steadman et al. (1998) shows that defendants who have
committed nonviolent crimes and successfully pled insanity spend nine times as long as
defendants who did not plea the insanity defense and committed the same crime
(Daftary-Kapur et al., 2011). Even those defendants that are successfully acquitted due
to insanity, still have to be institutionalized in mental hospitals, and their stay is longer
than expected.
7. NGRI acquittees are quickly released from custody.
Continuing the view point above, critics believe that defendants that are
hospitalized are there for a quick time and are then released. Daftary-Kapur et al.
(2011) argues that only slightly above 1% of those hospitalized are released
unconditionally (as cited in Silver, Cirincione, & Steadman, 1994). It takes more than
just a couple of years to receive treatment for mental illness. In fact, these individuals
are usually monitored and are not released until an expert and the court deems it
appropriate.
8. Trials involving an NGRI defense almost always feature ‘‘battles of the expert.”
The last misconception studied by Daftary-Kapur et al. (2011) is the fact that
experts usually do not agree on the insanity plea. In reality 86% of 316 cases examined
the prosecution did not contest the insanity defense; and in 81% of those 316 cases,
health experts agree on the diagnosis made by the defense (as cited in Rogers, Bloom, &
Manson, 1984).
Acquittal: the Path to Righteousness
For the most part people who favor the insanity defense and the acquittal of such
individuals have built a strong case by rebutting the misconceptions of the opposing side. This
has helped advocates of the insanity defense to strongly support their views throughout the
THE INSANITY DEFENSE
9
years despite its controversy. From a very early period in time insane people have been treated
harshly—many of them were left to die without receiving proper treatment. Even when
hospitals were specially created for these individuals they were usually tortured. Unlike
popular belief, individuals deemed as legally insane do not get a free pass to society; today they
are sent to psychiatric hospitals and receive the proper treatment for their mental disorder.
Andrea Yates was hospitalized in Texas, and was still there for more than four years after her
acquittal (Lilienfeld and Arkowitz, 2010).
Moreover, advocates of the insanity defense have noted how forty-eight out of the fifty
states have some form of the insanity defense; if so many of the states support it, it means that
the insanity defense is needed (Insanity Defense, n.d.). The insanity defense is not as easy to
plea as the general public believe. This also leads to the fact that the insanity defense is not
overused. Also, most people believe that the insanity defense usually involves murder trials.
However, sixty to seventy percent of cases involving insanity defense come from crimes other
than murder (they range from shoplifting to assault) (Insanity Defense, n.d.).
Advocates’ argument appeals to the moral side of the issue—the insanity defense should
be kept, because it is the right thing to do. Lilienfeld and Arkowitz (2010) note that it is not a
matter of justice, but rather a matter of “bona fide mental disorder.” Why should a person be
punished, when they had no control over their actions? In 1998 John P. Martin reported in the
Washington Post
[The insanity defense] allows judges and juries to decide some defendants aren't
"criminally responsible" for their actions even though those acts might be a crime under
different circumstances, just as a child who accidentally starts a fire shouldn't be
treated as an arsonist.
People who are truly insane lack the restrains that people generally have—they do what
“normal” people know as immoral, because they either do not know that what they are doing
is wrong, or they cannot control the impulse. The insanity defense is based on principle of
THE INSANITY DEFENSE
10
criminal law—if someone committed a crime, they should be criminally responsible for this
crime as a moral agent. Insane people do not have the capacity to morally assimilate their
actions due to their mental illness or disorder, therefore, it would be unfair to punish them.
“Guilty but Mentally Ill”: The Intersection between Conviction and Acquittal
“Guilty but mentally ill” is the point of compromise between those who believe that
people deemed insane should be punished for their crimes and those who believe that they
should receive proper treatment. Someone who is found guilty but mentally ill is convicted and
sent to jail, but while in jail they are supposed to receive treatment. However, to be found
guilty but mentally ill is just as ambiguous as been found not guilty by reason of insanity; this
verdict has not made the process of persecuting criminally insane people any easier.
Those who oppose the GBMI verdict claim that those criminals sent to jail but are found
mentally ill often times do not get the treatment needed for their mental illness. GundlachEvans (2006) claims that those individuals placed in prisons after being found guilty but
mentally ill do not have to receive mandatory treatment. This takes us back to the times where
insane people were sent to mental hospitals and were left there without treatment to die. As
mention before people who decide to use the insanity defense often times commit crimes that
range from shoplifting to assault. If these individuals are found guilty but mentally ill they are
going to be sentenced for a certain period of time. They will eventually get out, but if they did
not receive the treatment needed this creates a cycle, where the mentally ill individual keeps
committing crimes and keeps getting sent to prison without receiving the proper treatment.
Furthermore, because of the ambiguity of the guilty but mentally ill verdict, it is usually
hard to choose between finding someone not guilty by reasons of insanity and finding someone
guilty but mentally ill. In fact, both verdicts are very similar when it comes to their legal
definition. To be found guilty but mentally ill the defendant has to have pleaded insanity. This
clashes with the principle of criminal law mentioned above: to be found guilty of a crime as a
moral agent—capacity that insane people lack.
THE INSANITY DEFENSE
11
What is the Role of the Insanity Defense?
After researching about the insanity defense it has become clear that it has an
important role in the justice system. Individuals that do not have the capacity to understand the
wrongfulness of their actions should not be held accountable for such acts—it is dehumanizing
and immoral to do so. In fact principles of criminal law would be held inaccurate if one was to
convict those individuals. Furthermore, I have also come to find out that the public holds many
misconceptions about the insanity defense. It is important to understand that the insanity
defense is not implemented as often as it is believed and that this defense is not taken lightly in
the justice system. In summary, the insanity defense is not a free pass to freedom in society, but
rather a defense based on a very important principle of criminal law—it is a very unusual
exception, which proves that criminals should be held accountable for their actions.
THE INSANITY DEFENSE
12
References
Braff, J., Arvanites, T., & Steadman, H. J. (1983). Detention patterns of successful and
unsuccessful insanity defendants. Criminology, 21, 439–448
Daftary-Kapur, T., Groscup, J. L., O'Connor, M., Coffaro, F., & Galietta, M. (2011).
Measuring knowledge of the insanity defense: Scale construction and validation.
Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(1), 40-63. doi:10.1002/bsl.938
From Bethlehem to Bedlam - England’s first mental institution. (n.d.) Retrieved from
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/discover/people-and-places/disabilityhistory/1050- 1485/from-bethlehem-to-bedlam/
Gado, M. (n.d.). The insanity defense. Retrieved from
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/insanity/3.html
Gundlach-Evans, A. D. (2006). State v. Calin: The Paradox of the Insanity Defense and Guilty
but Mentally Ill Statute, Recognizing Impairment without Affording Treatment. South
Dakota Law Review, 51(1), 122-151.
Insanity defense FAQs. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/faqs.html
Insanity Defense. (n.d.). West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved
from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Insanity+Defense
Janofsky, J. S., Vandewalle, M. B., & Rappeport, J. R. (1989). Defendants pleading insanity: An
analysis of outcome. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 17(2),
203-211.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Arkowitz, H. (2010, December 23). The insanity verdict on trial. Retrieved
from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-insanity-verdict-on-trial/
Louden, J., & Skeem, J. L. (2007). Constructing insanity: jurors' prototypes, attitudes, and
legal decision-making. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(4), 449-470.
doi:10.1002/bsl.760
THE INSANITY DEFENSE
13
Martin, J. P. (1998, February 27). The insanity defense: A closer look. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/aron/qa227.htm
Pasewark, R. A., & Seidenzahl, D. (1979). Opinions concerning the insanity plea and
criminality
among mental patients. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and
Law, 7,
199–202.
Rogers, J. L., Bloom, J. D., & Manson, S. M. (1984). Insanity defenses: Contested or conceded?
American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, 885–888
Silver, E., Cirincione, C., & Steadman, H. J. (1994). Demythologizing inaccurate perceptions of
the insanity defense. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 63–70
Steadman, H. J., Mulvey, E. P., & Monahan, J. (1998). Violence by people discharged from
acute psychiatric inpatient facilities and by others in the same neighborhoods. Archives
of General Psychiatry, 55, 393–401