Insanity plea in criminal law

¶ … worlds of criminal justice and psychology, the insanity plea is a controversial subject. Some experts believe that it can be abused and allow criminals to get away with committing horrific crimes. Others content that the insanity plea is necessary to protect the mentally unstable. The purpose of this discussion is to provide detailed information about the insanity plea and its purpose in the criminal justice system. We will also investigate how it relates to psychology.

Insanity Plea

According to a book entitled Mental Condition Defenses in the Criminal Law, the issue of the insanity plea has been studied ad nauseam. The book explains there is an ongoing debate about whether the law should recognise that some crazy people ought not to be punished for behaviour which would normally be adjudged criminal. This debate, which tends to ebb and flow in the light of notorious cases, is one which deserves to be within the public domain since the underlying question of whether it is appropriate to excuse a mentally abnormal offender is a question with fundamental moral and social implications." (MacKay 1995)

The author explains that the theory behind the insanity plea has ancient origins. The book contends that the insanity plea is an "ancient and humane" concept that has been practiced in society. (MacKay 1995)

This principle asserts that if an individual is known to be mentally disturbed to the point they did not know what they were doing, they cannot be held accountable for their actions.

The book goes on to assert that the insanity plea is so controversial because of the very nature of insanity. The author explains that because mental stability is wide ranging it is difficult to determine what type of mental incapacity is defined as insanity.

For this reason, when there is a plea of insanity jurors must decide the defendants fate based on whether they were "so irrational as to be nonresponsible." (MacKay 1995)

In other words "the moral basis of the insanity defence, states that the crucial issue 'is whether in some cases extreme craziness (involved in the defendant's offensive conduct) so compromises the defendant's rationality or creates such compulsion that it would be unjust to hold the defendant responsible." (MacKay 1995)

The book asserts that sanity corresponds with being rational while insanity is related to being irrational. Therefore, people who are sane are expected to abide by a certain set of societal standards (MacKay 1995). When a sane person abandons these rules, there is punishment. On the other hand, when a person is insane they do not have the mental ability to follow the societal rules and they cannot be punished in the same manner that a sane person in punished (MacKay 1995).

According to an article found in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology explains the results of several different cases, which involved an insanity plea (Bonnie et al.). The study focuses on the ability of a defendant to participate in the decision to pursue an insanity plea. The study found that many of the clients were able to participate.

The study found that an insanity defense was employed in 85% of the cases that were studied. (Bonnie et al.) the study found that in about 55% of the cases clients participated in the decision to plead insanity. (Bonnie et al.) the article asserts in 43% of the cases, the attorney received the report, discussed it with the client, recommended that the defense be pursued, and the client followed the attorney's recommendation without objection; and in another 10% of the cases, the attorney entered an insanity plea based on an implicit delegation of authority from the client-either pursuant to a previous understanding with the client on the course of action to be followed upon receipt of the report or in anticipation of client ratification at a later time. In only two cases did the attorney and client have an overt disagreement. In one case the client decided to raise the insanity defense in the face of the attorney's contrary advice; in this case, the client eventually decided to plead guilty. In a second case, a client who strongly resisted the insanity plea eventually decided to pursue the defense due to pressure from his family; in this case, the defendant was eventually found NGRI at trial."(Bonnie et al.)

For many the ability of a client to participate in pleading insanity is controversial. Many contend that this ability shows that the person is rational and should be punished accordingly. While others argue that, the ability of a person to know that they are insane does not make them sane. In either case, the insanity plea remains as a controversial subject.

Within the realm of psychology, the issue of insanity has always been a topic of interest. Psychologists have long asserted that there are various mental conditions that render individuals insane. These conditions include schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and even certain forms of depression. Psychologists contend that these conditions can make an individual unable to rationalize.

A book entitled Court-Ordered Insanity: Interpretive Practice and Involuntary Commitment explains that many cases involve the hospitalization or commitment of the client. In these cases, the book explains that the client mental problems make it difficult for them to operate in a normal prison environment. In such cases, the criminal is placed in a facility so that they can get the proper treatment. (Holstein 1993)

The book also asserts that courts have preconceived notions about the mentally ill. The author explains that as court personnel impute mental illness, they implicitly structure their interpretations of patients' behavior more generally. That behavior, viewed as a product of mental illness, then serves to further document the presence of the illness itself. Thus, descriptions of patients as mentally ill and subsequent interpretations of their behavior stand in a fundamentally dialectical relation to one another. The underlying pattern -mental illness -- provides the basis for interpreting actions in a meaningful, distinctive way. The actions, so interpreted, in turn serve to document, substantiate, and sustain the underlying pattern." (Holstein 1993)