Understanding psychology in forensic investigation

¶ … Insanity Plea

One of the most controversial aspects of modern forensic psychology is the use of the insanity defense. The insanity defense has come to the forefront of the national consciousness because of a number of highly-publicized public shootings. On one level, killing innocent strangers for a personal cause seems insane. However, the legal definition of insanity (and competence to stand trial) is very different from either the public's definition or the colloquial definition of insanity. One of the most notable recent cases regarding the insanity defense is that of accused Colorado movie theater shooter James Holmes. Holmes is likely to enter an insanity defense and Googling 'insanity defense' immediately brings up articles about the Colorado case.

Before he committed the crime, Holmes exhibited extremely erratic behavior. In a Reuters article on the killing: "at the same time has was assembling his arsenal, Holmes failed his oral examinations and was told by a university professor that perhaps he was not a good fit for the neuroscience doctoral program" (Judge in Colorado shooting case expected to rule on insanity plea, 2013, New Straits Times). The article does not explicitly define legal insanity but notes that Holmes' case has been dogged by certain procedural questions. His defense attorneys argued "that a provision of the statute that requires a defendant mounting an insanity defense to submit to an examination by court-appointed psychiatrists is unconstitutional" and in violation of the right against self-incrimination (Judge in Colorado shooting case expected to rule on insanity plea, 2013, New Straits Times). Overall, the tone of the article is factual and non-inflammatory, but it does not specify why Holmes may have a good chance in successfully entering a plea of being criminally insane. This could make it difficult for a layperson to evaluate the case, given that many people believe that all killers are 'insane' in some way, and are equally suspicious of the insanity defense's ability to 'excuse' murder.

Time magazine's treatment of the issue was more balanced and also more comprehensive in its coverage. "Colorado law defines insanity as the inability to distinguish right from wrong, caused by a diseased or defective mind. The law specifically excludes depravity, 'moral obliquity' and passion caused by anger, hatred or other emotions from being considered insanity" (Elliot 2012). The article notes that Holmes was being seen by a psychologist at the time of the shootings and sent his therapist violent pictures but prosecutors have not had access to them because they are protected under physician-client privileges. It also states that even if the court-appointed examination in a mental facility finds Holmes insane, he could still be found guilty. Once again, the tone of the article is factual, although it does not really present the arguments of the two opposing sides in a complete fashion as to how Holmes might meet or not meet the Colorado definition of inanity.