The short answer to the question “How Successful is the Insanity Defense in Criminal Trials?” would be, not very, considering only 0.25% succeed according to Vatz (2010). However the 0.25% does not represent a burglary or assault but serious offenses , mostly murder. A major crime such as murder goes beyond just the legality and legalese of the issue as there is also a grieving family and community that has lost a loved one. The percentage of success of the insanity defense in criminal cases may be very low but it always counts when it succeeds due to the aggravated nature of the crimes that it was used for.
In America, criminal trials are mostly by a jury of peers drawn from the public thus, public perception of a crime is as important as a legal perception. News about aggravated and controversial crimes sells thus media houses will quickly propagate news and minute details of such crimes. For example, when Aysha Dawn Ring was viciously murdered by David Briggs, a lot of focus was given to the conduct of Briggs and how insane he sounded immediately after the murder (Vatz, 2010). The news coverage is considered as a major bearing factor on Briggs being considered insane at the time of the murder and never going to jail. Ring became part of the 0.25%, but the pain that her family went through was real.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It is noteworthy that it is possible for a person to commit a heinous crime simply because of a mental problem thus, the defense of insanity is a valid one (Perlin, 2017) . However, considering the low percentage of success in this defense , it is clear that all cases are considered purely on their merits and based on expert reports. The misunderstanding about the use of insanity as a defense is mainly based on perception rather than reality. Further, how the media presents these cases to the public does not help alleviate the misunderstanding.
References
Perlin, M. L. (2017). God said to Abraham kill me a son: Why the insanity defense and the incompetency status are compatible with and required by the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and basic principles of therapeutic jurisprudence. Am. Crim. L. Rev.54 , 477-519
Vatz, R. E. (2010). Doing away with the "only one-fourth of one percent" solution. USA Today Magazine, 138 (2778), 66-68.
