"Not Guilty, By reason of Insanity!" These words have stung the ears of many courtroom observers, especially the families and friends of victims whose lives were snuffed out by a so-called 'insane' assailant. While there are indeed many insane people running around the streets today, I feel that many persons who use the temporary insanity defense are more conniving than insane. Also, being an inexact science, the psychiatric community often offers up differing opinions as to any particular individual's sanity. Furthermore, money or lack thereof can play a major role in the success or failure of an insanity defense. The temporary insanity defense should therefore be abolished, especially for felony offenses such as murder. What exactly is the official court definition of legally insane? Criminal Law and Court Procedures author, Melroy B. Hutnick states that there are three basic rules that are commonly given consideration in deciding an individual's sanity. The first rule, M'Naghten's Rule states:" If at the time of committing the act, the defendant was laboring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and the quality of the act, but did not know that what he was doing was wrong, he is legally insane and not responsible for his acts. This rule is often referred to as the Right-Wrong Test." The second rule, known as Durham's Rule, states: "An accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect." Last, the Irresistible Impulse Rule states: "If by reason of a mental disease, the accused has so far lost his power to choose between right and wrong that he was unable to avoid doing the act in question, he is insane" (Hutnick 23). What does all of this mean? People can commit crimes yet not be held accountable for those crimes if they are found to be insane. The insanity defense is not new. As far back as the thirteenth century, jurist Braeton wrote. "For a crime is not committed unless the will to harm be present" (Taylor 96). The insanity defense was originally designed to protect the mentally-impaired who needed treatment in hospitals rather than imprisonment (Koshland 777). This was the humane course to take, one that acknowledged that through no fault of their own, there is a minute percentage of the population that truly has no concept of right and wrong. Unfortunately, men have abused this point of law over the centuries, especially in the last decade, at times making a mockery of it in the criminal courts. They have strayed from the premise that English common law is base on individual responsibility, and that if no one is held accountable for what he does, he will behave properly. Law is meant to control, not explain human nature (Taylor 97). But it seems that explanation of criminal behavior has overshadowed guilt or innocence in many cases today. George L. Bolen, a New York prosecutor stated, "You get caught, and suddenly you're a victim" (West 58). It indeed seems true that, "...Americans have moved from the self-absorbed Me Generation to the self-absolved Not Me Generation" (Slade 14). The parameters of victimization have expanded to the point that in any given situation most people could make an argument for their being a victim (Margolick 18). The addition of the "irresistible impulse" rule to the penal code back in the 1950's has spawned a vast variety of criminal defenses which attempt to absolve defendants of guilt. These defenses in effect say, 'I did the deed, but because of my circumstance, i was temporarily insane and therefore I shouldn't have to serve time for my misdeed.' The first successful temporary insanity defense was mounted in 1859 when a New York politician was acquitted of shooting his wife's lover (who, by the way, was the son of Francis Scott Key). The jury saw the defendant as the victim and concluded that Key got what he deserved (Margolick...
Cited: Caplan, Lincoln. "Not So Nutty: the Post-Dahmer Insanity Defense." The New Republic
March 30, 1992: 18-20.
Hutnick, Melroy B. Criminal Law and Court Procedures. Albany, New York: Delmar
Koshland, Jr., Daniel E. "Elephants, Monstrosities, and the Law." Science February 14,
Margolick, David. "Madness as an Excuse: Two Similar Arguments in the Same Court
With Starkly Different Results." The New York Times January 28, 1994: B18.
McQuiston, John T. "an Adviser Says Rifkin Is Weighing Guilty Pleas in 2 Deaths." The
New York Times March 9, 1995: 8.
O 'Brien, Ellen. "Insanity on Trial." The Philadelphia Inquirer November 2, 1995:F1, F5.
Slade, Margot. "In a Growing Number of Cases, Defendants are Portraying Themselves
as the Victims." The New York Times May 20, 1994: B14.
Taylor, John. "Irresistible Impulses, Unbelievable Verdicts." Esquire April, 1994: 96-98.
Toufexis, Anastasia. "Do Mad Acts a Madman Make?" Time February 3, 1992: 17.
West, Debra. "Accused Word 's at the Core of Insanity Defense." The New York Times
November 27, 1994: 58.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document