When we talk about crime and the law, things can get very serious. The truth is, people often make mistakes, but sometimes it might be a mistake of the mind of the person in trouble. This is where the insanity defense comes in.
Assume a man named Alex who suffers from schizophrenia, a disease that sometimes prevents him from seeing things as they truly are. At times, when he is experiencing a psychotic episode, Alex behaves in ways that no one would consider acceptable if he were “normal.” This is not an excuse, but rather a recognition that treatment of the condition, not punishment, can render a better outcome. By acknowledging the need for psychiatric help, a legal system can provide these individuals with the necessary support to recover and heal. This is the path to creating a justice system rooted in compassion, one that provides those struggling with mental illness the support they need to overcome and emerge from a cruel and isolating environment.
Let’s understand in detail when insanity is considered a valid defense.
Why the insanity defense should be allowed?
The insanity defense is important to the justice system because it highlights the mitigating cases of a defendant who suffered from mental illness as the cause of the crime. We’re saying, “Let’s not treat this person like every other criminal. They need help, not just a jail cell.” It’s about finding the right balance between justice and compassion.
Moreover, not every mental health issue qualifies for this defense. Only a few mental disorders are qualified to plead the defense. Basically, the insanity defense is based on the defendant’s mental state at the time of the crime. If the insanity defense is raised, a psychiatric/psychological assessment is conducted to confirm or refute the presence of “insanity” or the underlying medical conditions supporting it.
Conditions that may qualify for an insanity defense plea include:
Schizophrenic diagnosis with psychosis, manic psychosis, postpartum psychosis, acute delirium, moderate‑to‑severe dementia, epileptic seizure (must be proven), moderate‑to‑severe neurocognitive disorder, drug/medication‑induced psychosis, brain tumor/abscess. These conditions are very dangerous and can force a person to live in their own world.
Conditions that do not qualify for an insanity defense plea include:
Temporary insanity is unacceptable in the US legal system. Depression, panic disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, PTSD, recreational drug‑induced psychosis, borderline personality disorder (BPD), dissociative identity disorder (DID), or other non psychotic states are ineligible to plead for the Insanity Defense.
Eventually, only a severe mental disease that disables the person from realizing the act of crime and its consequences is to be taken as an insanity defense. However, if the person is already suffering from any of the above conditions, it is advisable to apply for a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation.
If the patient does not fall under any of those mentioned above criteria, it can still help the persecutor to acknowledge that the person in question here is seeking psychiatric care, has insight, and is now no longer considered a threat to society. Getting a same day psychiatrist appointment with a forensic psychiatrist can strengthen an insanity defense in court.
How is Insanity Determined?
Today, most courts rely on expert forensic psychiatric evaluations and testimony, which expand upon the legal definition of insanity to determine whether an accused person is legally and medically insane.
A forensic psychiatric evaluation report prepared by a psychiatrist serves as evidence in court in both criminal cases involving the insanity defense and civil cases related to parental alienation.
Courts may interpret the burden of proof differently, which the defendant must meet to be considered legally insane. The process for determining an insanity defense is as follows:
Bottom for Insanity Plea: The defense confirms that the defendant suffers from mental illness and believes that he would be found not legally culpable of the crime based on such mental illness.
Forensic Psychiatric Interview: A psychiatric evaluation by a board-certified forensic psychiatrist, including clinical interview and mental-status examination, to determine whether mental illness existed at the time of the crime and whether the defendant was legally insane at this point.
Historical Medical and Psychiatric Records: The attorney obtains all outpatient and inpatient medical records for the defendant’s possible long-term mental illness, diagnoses, and treatment; continuity of treatment and illness distinguishes chronic mental illness from acute or malingering illnesses.
Pharmacy Records: The attorney obtains all records of prescribed psychotropic medications the defendant was taking at the time of the offense; medications with side effects affecting the defendant’s mental state at the time of the offense further support mental illness as a direct cause of the crime.
Recent Records: The attorney interrogates records of the defendant’s mental state around the time of the offense, including recent hospital records, emergency-room records, records of acute care, and recent prescription and compliance records.
Collateral Interviews: The attorney obtains accounts from individuals present during the alleged offense or those capable of assessing the defendant’s mental state. Records and witnesses may include police interviews, family members and friends, coworkers, and visitors.
Review of Legal Criminal Insanity Standard: The psychiatrist applies the information collected to the applicable legal standard for criminal insanity in the jurisdiction where the crime took place.
Review and Synthesis: The psychiatrist prepares a report to the court, presenting their professional legal opinions on the issue of the defendant’s mental state at the time of the crime.
Expert Testimony: The psychiatrist testifies in support of their report in court before the judge or jury.
Based on a review of all the facts, even if the court determines that the person was genuinely mentally ill and qualifies for the insanity defense, it does not mean they will be set free. A mentally ill person is typically sent to a treatment facility rather than prison, to ensure they do not pose a danger to themselves or others.
Legal Criteria for the Insanity Defense
A Forensic Psychiatrist examines the accused and evaluates for the presence of mental illness according to the legal criteria of insanity (e.g., M’Naghten, Model Penal Code, etc). The legal criteria for the insanity defense may vary by state and jurisdiction. However, the most common legal criterion for the insanity defense is:
- The M’Naghten Rule: This is one of the most widely used legal criteria for the insanity defense. The rule is based on the case of Daniel M’Naghten, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity in 1843. M’Naghten Rules attempts to determine whether the individual knew what they were doing and whether they also knew it was wrong.
- Irresistible Impulse Test: This examines whether the individual lacked the capacity to control themselves, even if they knew it was wrong.
- Durham Rule: This considers whether the crime was a direct result of their mental illness.
- American Law Institute (ALI) Standard: This is a combination of criteria that examines both the actions and the capacity to control them.
The Takeaway
The insanity defense is a phenomenal system for ensuring those with diminished responsibility do not unfairly spend life in prison. If the defendant has no control over his/her actions due to a mental defect, then punishing him/her goes against the objectives of the legal system.
The insanity defense is only summoned when a psychiatric evaluation reveals that the defendant did not understand the gravity of their crime or was unable to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law at the time of the offense. A forensic psychiatric examination is conducted, based on criteria relevant to the case, to determine if a clinical diagnosis applies to the defendant. This defense allows the defendant to receive treatment and fair judgment rather than punishment.
