Insanity Plea

Caitlind Hosford
Mr. Petersen
Criminology
2 December 2014
Insanity Plea
The insanity plea has existed at least since ancient Greece and Rome and dates back to the Code of Hammurabi. The existence of the plea has been heavily debated in the United States and does not exist in Utah, Idaho, Kansas, or Montana. I think that there should be an insanity plea, as truly insane people sometimes commit crimes. The plea should be very strict and to even be able to use that defense, one has to have a separate trial to determine if he or she is insane.
The trial does not need to happen if the person was determined to be insane by a medical professional before the crime was committed. This will prevent many trials, as ninety percent of all people who plead insane were already known to be insane.
Like many, I do not agree with the Durham/ New Hampshire test. It is quite lenient and could let some off with a lesser sentence than they deserve. I agree with the M’Naghten rules for the most part, which date back to 1843. The burden of proof is placed on the defendant, as it should be. The difficult part is trying to define insanity. Many insane people are predisposed to it, but have an external factor that weighs in too. For example, R vs. Hennessy [1989] examined a diabetic man that had stolen a car and drove it while suffering from a mild attack of hyperglycaemia caused by stress and a failure to take his insulin. The man was predisposed to having diabetes, but it was his own fault for not taking his insulin and was not able to plead

insane. It also depends on the actions of the person. An example of this would be if a man cut off his wife’s head because he thought it was a loaf of bread, he would be found insane. However, if the man cut off his wife’s head because he thought it would be funny to see her reaction when she woke, he would not be found insane. Both of these indicate that something is wrong with his mind, but in the second scenario, the man still had the intention of cutting off her head while the first did not. Back to the trial that should be held to determine if the defendant is insane, there should be stricter penalties than normal if a person tries to plead insane and is not insane. This may sound harsh, but I think this would prevent people taking advantage of the system to try and get out of prison time or an execution.
I also agree with Australia’s mental disorder defense. It states that: the defendant does not know the nature and quality of the act, the defendant does not know what he or she did was wrong, and the defendant can not control the act that they did. It is very similar to the
M’Naghten rule, but it is just very specific and replaces “disease of the mind” with “mental impairment”. Temporary insanity is defined as a defendant was insane, but is now sane. It is also called the “Twinkie Defense” or the “abuse excuse”. . I do not think that temporary insanity even exists and should not be allowed. It is difficult to find burden of proof and has not been used that much.Daniel Sickles was the first to use this defense in the 1850’s after he publicly shot and murdered the man his wife was cheating with him on. He said that he was enraged in the moment and used temporary insanity as a defense. The case received much criticism after he was acquitted of murder. More famously, the defense was used by John Hinckley Jr. after he

attempted to murder President Ronald Reagan.
The insanity plea is very important in the judicial system as it helps those who have committed crimes get treatment for their problems, but at the same time should not be used to get out of time in prison or an execution. Every state should have a modified M’Naghten Rule with
Australia’s mental disorder defense and stricter penalties for those why try and fake being insane.