The concept of the insanity defense has been in existence for a long time, affecting the judicial system. The insanity defense is a situation whereby an excuse is given by the defendant to affirm he or she is not accountable for the criminal case because the actions were as a result of a persistent psychiatric illness when the incident occurred. The argument for this defense is that people who are mentally ill are not in a position to differentiate between evil and good hence do not need to be punished under the legal system for committing a specific offense. Fundamental human rights are violated when a person is punished for a criminal offense that he or she is not responsible for. A person who is incapacitated to commit a crime is supposed to be exempted from punishment; as they are deprived of a rational understanding of their behaviors and actions.
The determination and declaration of a person as being legally insane requires the carrying out of various tests. The assistance of psychiatrists is needed to ascertain that a particular mental disorder had an impact on the ability of a person to commit the specified crime. The current criminal system recognizes human beings as being morally responsible and not agents of harm. The insanity defense requires the consideration of two elements to determine whether a person is supposed to be held as criminally liable for an offense; prove that the person was behind the act and that the same individual executed the act under his or her free will. The insanity defense is a controversial issue due to its application, and the assessment process of the mental illness cases.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Main Ideas
The issue of the insanity defense is a serious trouble that requires ample consideration of the problem at hand. Nonetheless, little research has been carried on the topic of the insanity defense, thus limited knowledge (McBride, 2017). The topic of the insanity defense is a controversial one because the criminal law assumes that each person is sane, hence, able to distinguish between wrong and right. However, people who are suffering from mental illness experience functional impairment of the body, distress, and loss of freedom to execute some duties, thus unable to stand trial (Reisner, & Piel, 2018). The determination of the inability of the offender to stand trial requires a psychiatrist's mental evaluation to determine the capability of the defendant.
The psychiatrists play a crucial part in the evaluation of the mental health status of a patient who pleads insanity defense. The role of psychiatrists is to ascertain the existence or absence of mental illness following an insanity plea. Also, they aid in the fitness assessment of the person to determine when he or she can stand trial in cases relating to inculpability due to mental illness. Emotional and behavioral elements of the insanity defendants are examined because they have a significant impact on the ability of an individual to defend the case at hand. Still, the determination of criminal culpability of a person has faced some challenges, including the inability of lawyers to accept medical results, limited knowledge concerning etiology of mental disorders, change in patient's mental attitudes, and conflicting psychiatric reports. The attitudes of health professionals towards the mental illness offenders also affect the final results of the assessment (Adjorlolo, et al., 2018). In this case, the views of nurses concerning the conviction of the offenders play a critical role in determining the attitudes of the offenders.
The consideration of the inpatient admission of insanity defense by a psychiatrist is necessary for forming a basis of developing a comprehensive report of the defendant. A psychiatrist helps in educating the court and the provision of an honest and objective opinion concerning the case based on the factual data and sound reasoning. An in-depth review of all the accompanying legal documents allows the psychiatrists to initiate as an assessment of the defendant to reveal the medical conditions of the person under investigation. Apart from the defendant being present in person, the family members will have to be interviewed. Also, there will be the observation of the behavioral patterns of the defendants, analysis of photos of the crime scene, and postmortem and the autopsy report. The psychiatrists will also have to assess the history of presenting illness. It is a requirement to inform the defendant about the purpose of exercise and lack of confidentiality. All the events about the assessment must be documented, including the identification marks, injuries on the body, date, and time of evaluation. A detailed inquiry has to be carried out to establish the history of the presenting condition and premorbid character. Also, the assessment that focuses on the mental illness of the defendant at the time of the offense must be carried out. The detailed account of events should include information concerning the defendant’s behavior, emotions, occupational, biological, and social functioning of one week before the incident.
Background
The Arguments
Insane pleading assists in enhancing the public safety of the people in the society. Public safety is promoted because the affected person is taken for treatment and rehabilitation that does not act as a punitive option to imprisonment. The act allows the release of the individual to the community after rehabilitation since the defendant is not culpable for judgment over a criminal offense. The confinement of insanity acquittals in a mental health center for longer periods than they would have served if convicted is unconstitutional. Longer periods of being confined in mental health centers should not be used as punishment for the insane people. The development of quick-release standards and procedures will assist in protecting people who are no longer a threat to society from staying longer in mental health centers. The evaluation of the insanity acquittal’s medical progress assists in determining the period that the person will be confined in the facility.
Also, pleading insanity helps in protecting the defendant's basic human rights. The action prevents the conviction of a legally insane person because he or she did not commit the offense when in the right state of mind. The move is based on the notion that he or she was not able to differentiate between good and bad hence not responsible for the criminal activity. Nonetheless, the time spent by the individual in the health facility plays an integral part in establishing public trust in the justice system. Early release of individuals who are notorious for violent cases creates public suspicion on the legitimacy of the process.
Contrarily, the use of the insanity plea should not be allowed in the legal system. The issue of the temporary insanity defense is associated with a storm of controversy. It gives guilty defendants an opportunity of finding a way of escaping both institutionalization and punishment. A person who succeeds in defending the criminal charges on the grounds of insanity will have to be committed to a mental facility. The detention is limited by law; hence, the medical condition of the defendant requires periodic review.
Additionally, the continued existence of the insanity defense is threatened. There have been increased incidences of the release of people who have committed violent crimes like cases of attempted assassinations. Assaults have also led to the growth of distrust between the public and both the legal system and psychiatric professions. The growing seed of discontent is due to the frequent success of the insanity defense. The general public is frustrated with insanity acquittals; hence, such perceptions have become a significant concern for the people supporting the traditional function of the insanity defense. There have existed philosophical differences in the practical application of the insanity defense. The differences exist because the insanity defense assumes the critical issues that are central to the philosophical core, as stipulated in the criminal law.
Effects on Society
Individuals freed upon a successful insanity defense end up suffering the stigma of criminal insanity. The results of the stigma on the defendant are less palatable than the conviction itself. This is because the person will eventually have to acknowledge the commitment of the offense and the trial tactics that led to his or her release. People in the society will not want to associate with a person who has committed a serious offense and end up not being convicted to jail.
The hospitalization of the defendant in a mental health facility for more extended periods may subject his or her family to financial problems, especially when he or she was the breadwinner. As a result, there is a high possibility that the dependents of the person in the mental facility will have to engage in criminal activities to be able to provide for themselves and other family members. The acts of illegal activities slow down development projects and the growth of the economy.
Also, pleading insanity subjects the public to health hazards. There are incidences where legally insane people are released after rehabilitation and end up causing more harm to the community as opposed to when they would have been in prison. Such actions are detrimental to society because insane acquittals may commit more crimes that lead to deaths or injuries to other people.
Literature Review
Discussion of Two Journal Articles
Research shows that the understanding and knowledge of the insanity defense have continued to be limited for years. The raising of a defense assists in acquitting a criminal charge against the defendants. A mind constitutes a criminal act at fault that can be either intentional or reckless. The insanity defense has continued to be a point of controversy because a claim has to be made that the offense was a result of mental disease or defect (Asokan, 2016). According to the law governing the insanity defense, the accused person must be considered insane at the occurrence of crime or before the act. In this case, he or she was incapable of differentiating between good and evil. Researchers derive different perspectives concerning the rightness or wrongness of the insanity defense.
The authors of the article, The insanity defense: Related issues , are against the issue of pleading insanity because a person can be guilty but mentally ill. The practice of guilty but mentally ill plea faces criticism because the incarceration of the defendant to prisons is dangerous since the mental health resources in jails and prisons are poorly developed. The defendant will not be in a position to receive the necessary treatment while incarcerated. Besides, the concept of guilty but mentally ill makes the job of the judges and juries to be more comfortable. As a result, the legal system is compromised because the judgment might be based on society's definition of responsibility. The absence of developed measures to help in qualifying insane defenses might deny justice to the affected person because the defendant ends up being qualified as insane legally, and this can be wrong. In a different article, Math (2015) supports the insanity defense because the psychiatrists help in reducing the burden of proof of the mental cases. The assessment results by the psychiatrists help judges in making sound judgments based on the report (Math, 2015). This is necessary in ensuring fair judgment and eliminates the conviction of insane people.
Evaluations of the Arguments
The disadvantage of pleading insanity is that the absence of inadequate mental facilities may lead to wrong evaluation hence inaccurate judgment. The available assessment tools are not adequate to form to provide a comprehensive analysis of the mental state of the defendant. Also, the current insanity standards do not have impulse controls and rationality tests hence a lack of the identification of real objectives. Moreover, pleading insanity leads to increased crime rates because the defendants will have an option. In this case, leading insanity acts as a motivation for crime because there is a high possibility of manipulating the mental illness assessment report to favor the defendant. Nonetheless, the advantage of pleading insanity is that it allows people to have fair judgment. The assessment of the mental conditions of the defendant is necessary for protecting his or her basic rights of either being responsible for the offense or not.
Pro Position and Argument
My position is against the use of pleading insanity, which is a controversial issue. The pleading insanity approach should be dealt away with because it limits fair judgment in the legal system. The making of judgment based on a mental assessment report helps in the compromising the entire process. The absence of the latest technologies in the assessment of the mental status of the defendant may lead to invalid results hence wrong verdicts. A study carried out in India showed that the process of evaluating insanity defense and treatment has to be streamlined. In 2011, 5024 prisoners were assessed, and it was revealed that 4002(79.6%) prisoners had a possibility of being diagnosed with mental illness or abuse of drugs. After the elimination of the drug abuse, 1389(27.6) prisoners exhibited signs of a diagnosable mental disorder (Asokan, 2016). The statistics show that the evaluation process of mental illness is not sufficient.
The Better Option
The better option is to do away with pleading insanity. Despite the use of mental illness evaluation results, there are still incidences whereby insane people have been incarcerated. The availability of an option to plead insanity acts as a motivational tool that makes people engage in more criminal activities; hence, the elimination of pleading insanity will reduce crime rates. Besides, pleading insanity subjects the safety of the society to risk because people who succeed in pleading insanity might become a threat to society; for example, there is a high possibility that they end up engaging in criminal activities that cause more harm, death or injuries to the people. Individuals who succeed in pleading insanity may feel rejected by society and end up suffering from the stigma that can make them commit suicide or more severe offenses.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the insanity defense provides people with an opportunity to plead insanity in incidences where a defendant is assumed to have not been responsible for the offense committed. Several incidences have been reported where criminal liability has been imposed on mentally ill individuals. People who are for pleading insanity argue that the approach helps in enhancing fair judgment for legally insane people. It is recommended that the approach has to be done away with because the available assessment processes are outdated hence unable to provide a comprehensive report about the actual mental status of a person. Also, pleading guilty results in increased criminal activities and the release of people who have succeeded in pleading insanity subjects the society to safety threats. The existing knowledge about the insanity defense is limited. Besides, the available mental illness facilities are not able to provide meaningful help to people who are guilty but mentally ill. The better option is to eliminate the insanity plea.
References
Adjorlolo, S., Abdul-Nasiru, I., Chan, H. C., & Bambi, L. E. (2018). Mental health professionals’ attitudes toward offenders with mental illness (insanity acquittees) in Ghana. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology , 62 (3), 629-654.
Asokan, T. V. (2016). The insanity defense: Related issues. Indian journal of psychiatry , 58 (Suppl 2), S191.
Math, S. (2015). Insanity Defense: Past, Present, and Future. Retrieved 4 November 2019, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283302330_Insanity_Defense_Past_Present_and_Future
McBride, M. (2017). Knowledge and Insanity. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique , 30 (4), 625-636.
Reisner, A. D., & Piel, J. L. (2018). Mental Condition Requirement in Competency to Stand Trial Assessments. The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law , 46 (1), 86-92.
