Carly Furlong
1
Table of Contents
Editors Note….3
Understanding Insanity Defense….4
Proposal for Change….7
Insanity in the Media ….9
Relating….11
2
Editors Note
I would never consider myself ultra interested in the legal system or politics. I’ve always
just figured everything is the way it is because someone with authority decided it to be
the best way. I became interested in the Insanity defense with the Elizabeth Smart case
that I felt connected too, as you will read in the memoir section of the magazine.
Originally the report and information was on the Insanity Defense alone, and how the
legal system finds a criminals insane and the tests they use in determining that. Delving
further into research, the historic figures whom have made the Insanity Defense well
known is much more interesting to study. I rewrote the report section to include
information about notorious criminals who plead not guilty by reason of insanity and
aimed the position paper to propose as people to recognize symptoms of mental
instability in people we are close to so we could stop the crime before being committed.
I changed my proposal from insisting the tests be more strict to determine insanity to
not allowing someone to be found ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ at all but instead,
‘guilty but insane’. I watched hours of different documentaries about serial killers and
criminals who used insanity as their defense. Each time I edited my papers they became
more informative and definite in opinions. I hope you learn something new by reading
this magazine.
-Carly
3
Defining Insanity
Tests for the Insane
If you live in Utah, you are probably
vaguely familiar of the use of the
Insanity Defense from the recent case
regarding the kidnapping of Elizabeth
Smart. Her accused kidnapper, Brian
David Mitchell, attempted to plead
insanity as his means of defense but
was unsuccessful. Although it seems
like the insanity defense is common, it is
only because the defendants using it as
their plea usually committed a high
profile crime like the Unibomber or the
attempted assassination of Ronald
Reagan known as the Hinckley case.
Actually, only about one percent of
cases use the insanity plea. However,
the definition of insanity is complex and
can be interpreted in many ways.
Lectlaw.com gives a detailed and
accurate definition of what it is. Their
definition is as follows:
Although the insanity defense seems
like it might be a recent addition to law
practice it is not. It is something that
has been around as far back as the 12th
century though not originally
considered a valid offense, it was
definitely recognized.
A person is insane, and is not
responsible for criminal conduct
if, at the time of such conduct, as
a result of a severe mental
disease or defect, he was unable
to appreciate the nature and
quality or the wrongfulness of his
acts.
The insanity defense is controversial
due to the fact that insanity itself is
extremely difficult to define as well as to
prove. Furthermore it raises the
question as to whether or not being
insane excuses a person from
committing a criminal act.
In 1843, a paranoid schizophrenic Daniel
M’Naghten shot and killed Edward
Drummond, the secretary to Britain’s
Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel.
M’Naghten was found not guilty on the
basis of the fact that he was
momentarily insane at the time of the
crime. The people were outraged and
the English House of Lords established
standards for the insanity defense which
is more commonly known as the
M’Naghten Rule.
It is complicated to prove that a
defendant is insane and is not able to
control his actions or be aware that his
actions were wrong. With the
complications, the M’Naghten Rule is
still in place in the majority of states
today.
In an attempt to simplify the M’Naghten
Rule, the Durham Rule was adopted in
New Hampshire in 1871, also referred
to as the “product test” which claims
that, “The defendant is not criminally
responsible if his unlawful act is the
product of a mental disease or defect”
(Phelps and Cengage par. 10) Durham
Rule makes the relationship to the crime
committed out of insanity objective to
the defendants diagnosis. The Circuit
Court has criticized this test because
there can be no concrete definition of
4
mental disease and it is difficult to
diagnose. New Hampshire is the only
state that still uses the Durham Rule.
it valid. While the ALI test is not applied
or considered on a federal level, 18
states use the test to define insanity.
We are constantly trying to find a way
to perfect the ways of finding someone
not guilty by reason of insanity. The
irresistible impulse test first adopted by
the Alabama Supreme Court in 1887, is
a test that determines whether or not
the defendant is aware of the difference
between right and wrong and whether
or not they are able to control their
impulses by committing a wrongful act.
The test is criticized by accusations that
it makes the definition of insanity too
broad and is questioned by whether or
not it can decipher if the defendant is
actually insane or if they are ‘faking’
insanity. Some states use the IIT
(Irresistible Impulse Test) as an
extension to the M’Naghten rule and
some use it as a separate test
completely.
In the Hinckley case, Hinckley being the
man who attempted to assassinate
President Ronald Reagan in 1981, was
deemed “guilty but mentally ill” which
finds the defendant criminally liable for
their act but requires them to receive
psychiatric treatment while incarcerated
or may give them the option to be
placed in a mental hospital until they
are considered well enough to be put in
prison to finish out their sentence.
The American Law Institute’s Model
Penal Code Test
The ALI test incorporates all three of the
tests that came before it; M’Naghten,
Irresistible Impulse and the Durham
Rule. The ALI’s new test was designed
in 1962 and states that, “a person is not
responsible for criminal conduct if at the
time of such 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 the law” (Phelps and
Cengage par 12).
The mental disease or defect must be a
medical diagnosis for the ALI to consider
Controversy
The insanity defense is controversial.
Defining insanity and proving that a
person was in cognitive at a specific
time is nearly impossible. It is
determined by mental health experts
but is still only their professional
opinion to decide if that person is sane
or not. Despite a lot of publicity, the
insanity defense is actually rarely used
in criminal cases and is usually rejected.
State courts spend thousands of dollars
to evaluate a person’s mental health
once they have pleaded not guilty by
5
reason of insanity. The trial has to be
legally fair. According to the
Washington Post, a study of eight states
in the early 1990’s found that less then
one percent of defendants plead not
guilty by reason of insanity and that
only a quarter of them won acquittals.
Finding a defendant not guilty by reason
of insanity does not mean that they are
free to go. They are likely to be placed
in a secure mental health facility if they
are found to be unstable and pose a
threat to themselves or to the public.
which required detailed and specific
planning for more then a decade, was
rejected the use of the insanity plea for
his defense and sentenced to life in
prison. The Hinckley case with the
attempted assassination of President
Ronald Reagan was ‘guilty by reason of
insanity’ and was then institutionalized
to a mental facility and is allowed
supervised visits home.
Faces of the Insanity Defense
There are infamous assassins and
criminals who have attempted to use
the insanity defense as their plea to
being not guilty. Most recently in the
news, Jared Loughner, the gunman of
the recent Tucson shootings might
attempt to claim not guilty by reason of
insanity. Brian David Mitchell, the man
recently found guilty for the kidnapping
and raping of Elizabeth Smart,
prolonged his trial for years in an
attempt to be found not guilty due to
the fact that he is mentally-ill and was
not aware that the what he was doing is
wrong. The state of Utah spent an
estimated $750,000 to determine that
Mitchell is a con-artist faking his insanity
and he was found guilty on all charges.
Jeffrey Dahmer, cannibal and murderer
of 17 young boys plead that he was
insane and should not be considered
guilty. He was found guilty of 15
murders and was sentenced to life in
prison where he later died. The
Unibomber, killed three people and
wounded 22 others with his mail bombs
Brian David Mitchell being escorted out
of the courtroom after he wouldn’t stop
singing in an attempt to appear ‘insane’
Conclusion
Mental diseases are real. Serial Killers,
kidnappers, rapists, murderers are all
real as well. The insanity defense is
used as a mechanism to be ethically fair
to all of those who come through the
court system. Millions of dollars are
spent trying to determine the mental
wellness of criminals but find the
majority of them to be sane and
manipulative enough to try and fake
their own insanity. Whether or not the
insanity defense is beneficial in our
court system is a matter of opinion; it’s
an ethical issue on whether or not all
people should be punished the same
disregarding their state of mental
6
health, or if we should make exceptions
for those not able to think clearly or
who are unable to determine the
difference between right and wrong.
Proposal
The insanity defense is a waste of time
for everyone involved. Having the
option to plead not guilty by reason of
insanity only causes trials to be
unnecessarily prolonged and costs the
states hundreds of thousands of dollars
to find that they are only dealing with a
criminal con-artist. It is fair for
someone to be insane but that should
be no excuse to find them not guilty it
was proven to be them who committed
the crime. Finding someone ‘guilty but
insane’ is more effective and requires
less psychiatric evaluation then trying to
determine that a person is not guilty
because of their insanity. It is every
individual’s responsibility to take care of
there selves physically and mentally to
ensure that they are capable of
following the law.
Although the insanity defense is used in
less then one percent of felony cases, it
appears to be more prevalent then it is
since it is most often used in high-profile
cases. For example, the recent trial of
Brian David Mitchell accused kidnapper
of Elizabeth Smart, was originally found
incompetent to stand trial and was held
in custody until considered competent
enough to stand trial. He plead not
guilty by reason of insanity but his plea
was finally rejected in December of
2010 after years of continuances and
court disruptions. Doctors determined
Mitchell was faking his own mental
illness and only showed instability inside
the courtroom but acted quite normally
outside of it proving him to be
deceitfully guilty.
Every person needs to be held to equal
accountability for their actions, whether
mentally stable or not, they should have
taken the necessary steps that other
people with mental disorders or
physical ailments must do, whether that
is psychiatric treatment or medication
to keep them mentally aware and
responsible for their own actions it is up
to them.
Furthermore, if there is evidence
showing instability prior to committing
the crime, something should have been
done about it. For example, a case in
the 90’s at North Carolina University
where a law student went on a shooting
rampage killing two people and harming
another plead not guilty but reason of
insanity. The defendant admitted that
he had been seeking psychiatric help
prior to his emotional breakdown that
resulted in the killings, but had run out
of medicine. He blamed his psychiatrist
for not giving him another specific
psychiatrists name after the one he had
been seeing retired, even thought that
psychiatrist had advised his patient to
continue with treatment that the
defendant neglected to take. The
defendant was also prescribed a 30 day
prescription to help keep him stable
until he could find another psychiatrist
to help him out. The defendant
admitted in his testimony that he had
only committed the crime because he
had run out of his medicine and was
then left unstable, if he would have
taken the necessary precautions and his
doctor’s advice the shooting rampage
7
would not have happened at all. That
statement in itself proves that the
defendant was cognitive enough to be
aware of his actions and realize he
needed help. He was negligent in
getting the help that he knew he
needed, and murdered two people
because of it. An interesting twist is
that the defendant then sued the state
and the psychiatrist once he was found
guilty because he insisted that it was his
psychiatrist’s fault that the incident
happened in the first place, he won and
was awarded $500,000.
As it is, the definition of criminal
insanity and the rules we use as
guidelines for a defendant to be
determined, ‘not guilty by reason of
insanity’ are unclear. They vary from
state to state and the wellness of the
person is determined by psychiatric
‘experts’ and their opinions. There is no
way to show concrete evidence that the
defendant is insane. There should not
be an option to plead not guilty by
reason of insanity if it has already been
proven that the person committed the
crime. Finding someone guilty, but
insane should be the only option
involving mental stability. That should
only mean that they receive special
medical attention while incarcerated
since clearly they are a threat to the
public.
Statistics show that a mentally ill person
is more likely to be the victim of a
violent crime then they are to be the
one actually committing the crime.
People can’t seem to grasp the idea that
a ‘normal’ overall mentally stable
person could knowingly commit a
violent crime against another person. It
already costs tax-payers $22,000 per
inmate every year that they are in
prison, for an average psychiatric
hospitalization, which is on average
about 6 days, costs approximately
$81,000. To give perspective, the
doctor that found Brian David Mitchell
competent enough to stand trial
charged the state $750,000 to
determine that Mitchell is only a conartist trying to lessen his sentence and
reduce his charges. The state is wasting
thousands, if not millions of dollars on
manipulative criminals trying to work
the system and reduce their sentencing.
Everyone needs to step up to the plate
and take responsibility, not only for
themselves but for the people around
them also. People should be educated
about what the symptoms are for
someone suffering from a mental
disorder.
If you find that someone you know is
suffering from a mental health disorder,
don’t ignore the signs. Encourage the
person to seek help to avoid them doing
8
something harmful to themselves or to
someone else. It is interesting that in
almost every case people close to the
defendant were aware and admitted to
knowing that the defendant had signs of
mental instability prior to committing
their crime. If insanity, to the point of
not being able to determine right from
wrong is real, and the defendant
showed signs prior to committing the
crime that someone around them
recognized, the person who ignored the
criminals insane tendencies should be
held somewhat accountable for the
crime also. They were negligent in
assisting that person to seek help.
Criminals should not be excused for
their crime not matter what their
mental wellness is. Less then one
percent of the one percent of people
pleading not guilty by reason of insanity,
are actually found insane. What a waste
of everyone’s time. The insanity
defense should not be there as a
cushion to excuse someone from the
crime that they committed. Each
individual person needs to be held
responsible for their actions regardless
of diseases they might have. Whether
committing a crime out of delusions or
cognitively, everyone is responsible for
their actions; if they do something
illegal because they failed to receive the
medical attention they needed, they are
still guilty and should be charged with
the standard sentencing that is put in
place for everyone. Of course a guilty
criminal is going to do anything they can
to find a way out or to place blame
somewhere other then themselves.
People make cognitive bad decisions
everyday; some are just worse then
others. Be accountable.
Insanity Defense in the Media
Background
The insanity defense has been around
for hundreds of years. We often
recognize the beginning of the Insanity
Defense in the court system with the
M’Naughten trial which gave the name
to the test we use now. We use this
test today to determine the mental
wellness of a defendant pleading not
guilty by reason of insanity.
.
To be considered not guilty by reason of
insanity the person has to have been
totally unaware that the act they were
committing was wrong. Less then one
percent of cases actually use Insanity as
means to prove they not guilty and of
that one percent only a quarter of them
are successful. Although one percent
seems low, the reason the general
public is familiar with the Insanity
Defense is le case.
Controversy
As with most things that deal with
deciding punishment for other people
and the ethical issues surrounding it,
there has been a lot of debate on the
justice in finding someone not guilty by
reason of insanity. On the other hand,
the argument of whether or not it is
ethical to punish someone for a crime
they committed if they are not mentally
healthy or stable.
Overview
People have very strong opinions on
what they consider to be right or wrong
regarding this topic. There are many
video blogs, news story clippings and
9
even documentaries surrounding the
Insanity issue including documentaries
on criminals who used insanity in their
defense. A video blog posted on
soannoying.com but found through
youtube.com gives an over view
explanation on what the Insanity
defense is. I chose this blog after asking
fellow classmates their position on the
Insanity Defense, even though they
were familiar with the term, they were
not knowledgeable enough on it’s
perameters to have a solid opinion.
Video Blog
The video is intended to educate their
audience about the Insanity Defense
while also endorsing their opinion on
the topic. For a topic that can be hard
to research for someone not familiar
with legal jargon and an extensive and
detailed history, this video makes it easy
for viewers to understand a broad
meaning of the insanity defense. It
captures viewer’s attention by using
pop culture clips and a current story in
the media. It aims to be humorous
about what is considered to be insane.
The content of the video is put together
decently by incorporating pictures,
sound and movie clips to help the
audience relate and stay attentive.
What the clip fails to include is the legal
definition of insanity and only gives
examples of what could be considered
‘insane’ but that actually do not pertain
to a persons mental health. Examples
they use include shark diving, having 19
kids or becoming president as being
insane. The clip does not acknowledge
the controversies surrounding the issue
or present any of the opposing sides
view points, even briefly or to mock.
Over all, the clip does not make it clear
what the ongoing battle and concerns
are for people who have committed a
serious crime and are attempting to be
found not guilty by reason of insanity. It
mocks and blurs the legal meaning of
insanity giving misrepresentations on
the issue and down playing the
seriousness of the topic.
Other videos in the same genre and
category use a more professional tone
and give more accurate legal
explanations as to what is considered
insane and the steps taken to determine
the mental health of someone who has
committed a serious crime. I would not
recommend this video clip to someone
who is unfamiliar with the Insanity
Defense and its process or
requirements. It could confuse them
and lead them to having a misinformed
opinion on the issue.
Comparison
10
The most informative videos found
were those that were about a criminal
who actually plead not guilty by reason
of insanity. A documentary about the
life and crimes of Jeffrey Dahmer
explained in explicit detail his life before
the crimes and the alleged reasoning
behind his criminal actions. He was
found sane and guilty of 15 charges of
murder. The documentary is extremely
effective in tell Dahmers story and
making it so the audience understands
his trial and what went into his
sentencing.
Relating
I had finally started sleeping by myself.
Bedtime was always a challenge for my
poor mother. Finally in the sixth grade I
stopped sneaking into my younger
sisters room at night to sleep on her
floor and would stay in my own bed.
Then it happened, I was SCARED all over
again. Maybe we can blame my parents,
for constantly being glued to the news
station or maybe there’s no one to
blame at all except for the people who
do BAD things in the world.
I grew up in South Jordan, an upper
middle class picture perfect
neighborhood where everyone is
religious and completely naïve. Bad
things don’t happen in neighborhoods
like that. They help out people less
fortunate then they are, everyone is
friends, has good jobs, nice houses and
associates with good people. Well
that’s what they like to believe.
Fourteen year old Elizabeth Smart was
kidnapped from her home on the night
of June 5, 2002. She was taken from her
bed in her room that she shared with
her younger sister MaryKatherine, who
was left alone while pretending to be
asleep. Searches for the teenage girl are
underway but so far there is no sign of
the young girl much to the distress of
her family and friends. Family members
and house workers are currently under
investigation to determine suspects.
Night after night we watched for
updates of the Elizabeth Smart story. I
returned to my old habit of wandering
into my younger sisters room in the
middle of the night if I was having
trouble falling asleep alone, having her
there made me feel safe. But clearly
that had no effect on Elizabeth Smarts
kidnapper since he took her even
though her sister was sleeping in the
same room. I was grasping for anything
that gave me security. He broke in
through a window, my bedroom being
on the second floor of our home gave
me little SECURITY, I begged my dad to
do something so he put a board in my
window track as well as the windows on
the first floor making it so the windows
could only open a few inches, not wide
enough for somebody to slide through.
Nine months after her abduction
Elizabeth Smart is returned to her
family. March 12, 2003, Elizabeth Smart
11
was spotted with her alleged
kidnappers, Brian David Mitchell and
Wanda Barzee, she was reunited with
her family after she underwent intensive
questioning and at first would not admit
that she was the missing girl, Elizabeth
Smart, she had allegedly been
brainwashed into believing she was
someone else. Mitchell and Barzee have
been taking into custody to face charges
of kidnapping and rape.
I remember the day they found her, I
was in the seventh grade and my dad
had picked us up from school. It’s the
only memory I have of my dad picking
us up from school and as we were
driving home, it was announced on the
radio that she had been found much to
the entire Nations relief. We had all
watched her home videos that were
released the search efforts that had
been organized. No one expected her
to be found alive after nine months.
The statistics were all against it. It is an
unexpected happy ending, her
kidnappers were in custody and JUSTICE
would be served.
Cut to the present, well Decemberish
2010. It has been years since Elizabeth
Smarts kidnapping but the sentencing of
Brian David Mitchell is just barely taking
place. His trial for the kidnapping
charges was originally postponed as the
court ruled that he was not mentally
competent to stand trial. I didn’t
understand the justice in that. What I
understood was that this horrifying
monster, kidnapper was faking to be
CRAZY so he wouldn’t be punished for
the crime he committed. I considered
that to be complete injustice for the
Smart family. Could somebody be so
mentally ill that they had no idea that
the crime they were committing was
wrong and against the law? For nine
straight months? I didn’t understand.
In December 2010, Mitchell’s plea of
not GUILTY by reason of insanity was
rejected and he was found guilty of all
accounts of kidnapping and rape. His
sentence is still yet to be determined.
But I still didn’t get it, are people really
found not guilty because they are crazy.
I always thought a person would have to
be crazy to kidnap, rape, or murder; but
not according to our legal system. I had
to know more.
Since the day of her kidnapping I have
kept up with the story of Elizabeth
Smart, being close to the same age,
growing up in a practically identical
community, having the same features
and being a woman, I realized that my
biggest fear is being kidnapped. I
related to her and felt for her, needless
to say I have never been kidnapped but I
have had a man force himself on me
who I am certain, was well aware that
what he was doing was wrong. I was
angry when I discovered that people can
be excused of a crime if they can be
found and diagnosed as insane.
12
Works Cited
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N4E8OIgnIA
Barnet, Tyler. “Insanity Defense is Insane.” Soannoying.com Videos. 8
March 2010. Web. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NFAyJ6VYfE.
Niles, Randall. “Morality and the Insanity Defense.”
AllAboutPhilosophy.com. 13 October 2007. Web.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYl8LFdWCiU&NR=1
13
United States. PBS Broadcasting. A Crime of Insanity. PBS.org. February
2011. Web.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/history.html
http://www.heartsandminds.org/prisons/facts.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/faqs.html
http://www.mentalhealthstigma.com/subvertingthelaw.html
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/111584/
14