wa2 summary

An Exploration of the Insanity Plea

Jane Doe Sample

SYG2323.002

Santa Fe College

2

Abstract

The insanity plea, which states that a defendant is not guilty by reasons of insanity, is a very

complex defense that is rarely used in the court systems. By exploring secondary data it is found that the

insanity plea results in numerous questions for the judge and jury, such as whether the defendant had

impaired functioning due to a mental illness when the crime was committed. Further research shows that

defendants are very unlikely to want to plead insane, due to the possibility of a longer sentence at an

inpatient care facility than they would have had in jail, if they just plead guilty. By exploring three court

cases where the insanity plea had been considered more difficulties with using the insanity plea will be

brought to attention; for example if the defendant does not want to plead insane. As a result of applying

the trait theory, both psychological and biological theories, defendants could argue that specific traits

made them more likely to commit crime or that they were unable to fight these urges. Overall this paper

will give valuable information on the insanity plea and its use in the court system.

Introduction

The insanity plea can been used in the court system to argue that a defendant is not guilty by

means of insanity. However, this form of defense can cause many questions to the court system; through

the analysis of secondary data these questions will be more widely explored. Furthermore the trait theory,

from both psychological and biological views, will be applied to the insanity defense in an attempt to tie

the two together. Finally, a possible mean of collecting primary data on the insanity plea will be explored.

Overall, the purpose of this paper is to examine the facts of the insanity plea and how it is used in court

cases, focusing on some of the different biological, psychological, and other factors that are considered

when insanity is being claimed.

Methodology: Secondary Data

According to Smith (2012) the insanity plea, also referred to as insanity defense, can be used in

court to prove that the defendant is not guilty of the crime that they committed by reason of insanity. The

insanity plea is rarely used; less than 1% of defendants attempt to use it and a very small percentage are

successful, however media coverage of the rare, prominent cases which employ it often create the

3

impression that it is much more common (Smith, 2012). In cases where the defendant successfully uses

the insanity plea, they are found not legally responsible even though they committed the crime, although

proving insanity can be quite difficult. In order for a defendant to be allowed to enter a plea of insanity

they must be suffering from a mental disorder, there had to have been a significant impaired practical

functioning at the time that the crime was committed, and it has to be proven that the impaired

functioning resulted in the crime (Smith, 2012).

Furthermore, Smith (2012) highlights the difficulty of navigating the standards of insanity

defenses and actually implementing them in specific situations. One of the biggest struggles when

proving insanity is the process of determining whether the defendant was actually mentally ill at the time

of the crime, especially with varying possibilities such as temporary insanity. The article also details the

difficulty of implementing a successful insanity plea that comes from extreme variance in the actual laws

and tests of determination from state to state and at the federal level, and a general lack of uniformity.

Smith (2012) proposes that neuroscience could be a possible answer to some of these problems, which

could assist in determining when defendants or witnesses are lying, mental status and capacity, etc.,

though it would certainly not solve every issue. (Smith, 2012).

The second article presents similar background information on the insanity defense, however it

provides further context by detailing three specific cases and how the insanity defense was imposed on

the defendants. According to Richie, Alam, Gazula, Embrack, Nathani, and Bailey (2014) the legal

definition of insanity is “a condition which renders the affected person unfit to enjoy the liberty of action

because of the unreliability of his behavior with concomitant danger to himself and others” (p.1). Richie

et al (2014) go on to mention factors that may influence the defendant to reject an insanity plea; firstly a

defendant may fear that they will face a more lengthy confinement in a mental health institution than a

potential prison sentence. Secondly, they may choose a guilty plea to avoid the negative association of the

mental illness that goes with the insanity plea and they may wish to avoid the collateral that follows an

insanity acquittal. Also, there is the possibility that the defendant will reject that they were insane at the

time of the crime, even if everyone else believes that they were.

4

Ritchie, et al.,(2014) state that in the case of Frendak vs. United States in 1979, Paula Frendak

stalked and murdered her co-worker, Willard Titlow, which she was found guilty of one count of first

degree murder. On an appeal however, it was found that Frendak likely suffered from a personality

disorder and was therefore not guilty by reason of insanity; she rejected this ruling, and in the landmark

case Frendak v. United States it was ruled that the court could not impose an insanity defense upon

someone if they were competent to stand trial and competent enough to waive the insanity defense

(Richie Et al, 2014). The second case discussed by the article is that of Jamar Phenis, who was convicted

of arson, destruction of property, and cruelty to children in 2006. The examiner of Phenis believed him to

have "judgement and insight distorted by unrealistic thinking," but after a series of examinations he was

found to be fit to stand trial (Richie Et al, 2014. p.4). The defense and Phenis himself did not pursue an

insanity defense and he was eventually found guilty despite his continuing stay in St. Elizabeth's Hospital

due to his mental condition. In an appeal case, Phenis vs. United States in 2006, it was found that Phenis

had not been fully informed of the insanity defense, but that it was not the judge's position to force an

insanity defense upon a defendant (Richie et al, 2014). Ultimately, his conviction was upheld. The article

also discusses a third case of Anders Breivek, in Norway, who was responsible for the mass murder of 77

people by shooting and bombing. In his trial, Breivik claimed self-defense and that he was defending his

nation from foreigners who he saw as a threat to Europe (Richie Et al, 2014). Breivik repeatedly refused

any insanity defense; the article says that the reason for this was that in Norway an insanity ruling would

have confined him to a mental hospital for as long as he was considered insane, whereas a guilty ruling

would give him Norway's maximum sentence of 21 years (Richie Et al, 2014). After evaluation he was

found by one psychiatrist to have schizophrenia, and another found him to have narcissistic personality

disorder. Ultimately, there was little evidence to support the more serious diagnosis of schizophrenia in

his actions during and prior to the mass murder, and his repeated refusal of insanity caused him to be

found guilty.

Ultimately both of these articles succeed greatly in highlighting the difficulties and complexities

of the insanity defense. Some of these difficulties are a result from inadequately being able to determine

5

to what extent the defendant suffered from mental illness, whether or not they did at the time of the crime,

differing laws, and whether or not they agree to an insanity plea.

According to Stredny, Parker, and Dibble (2012) almost as much research goes into determining

the proper aftercare for insanity acquittees as it did to determine if they are guilty or not. After a

defendant is acquitted by reason of insanity they are admitted to an inpatient facility for an evaluation

period. During this period they will be evaluated to determine if they should continue inpatient facility

care or be released into the community. Usually the length of inpatient facility care will be determined by

factors such as seriousness of a crime, mental illness or other reasons of insanity, and level of risk posed.

For example, acquittees who had committed more serious crimes and had committed their first crime at a

young age would be recommended hospitalization instead of release (Sterdny, Parker, & Dibble, 2012).

Similarly, how an acquittee responded to treatments and such at the inpatient care facility would also

influence their likelihood of being released. If a patient complied with taking medication and the

treatment seemed to be helping they may be transferred to a less restrictive facility. Sterdny, Parker, and

Dibble (2012), suggest that acquittees who were diagnosed with an anxiety disorder were less like to be

recommended for hospitalization, while those who suffered from psychotic disorder were more likely to

be hospitalized. Overall evaluators use a multitude of different factors to determine if an individual who

has been acquitted by reason of insanity should be released into the community or get treatment at an

inpatient care facility.

Theory

According to Siegel (2015), Trait theory is “the view that criminality is a product of abnormal

biological or psychological traits” (p.109). Trait theory can be subdivided into two different categories,

the biological makeup and the psychological functioning (Siegel, 2015). According to the biological trait

theory, predetermined genetics, hormone influences, environmental influences, and even a person’s diet

can influence their likelihood of committing a crime. Similarly, trait theory focuses on the psychological

aspects such as neurological conditions, depression, schizophrenia, and diminished brain capability

(Siegel, 2015). When applied to the insanity plea trait theory could be relevant for the defense. A lawyer

6

could argue that their defendant’s crime was a direct link to either their biological makeup or

psychological traits. One argument that a lawyer could employ would be that even though their defendant

has faced similar life situations as others who chose not commit a crime, the traits that the defendant

possesses influenced them to turn to crime. Trait theories might also be relevant in the case of insanity

pleas because defense attorneys could use genetics to argue that an individual is predisposed to mental

illness based on family history. Some of the things that have previously been traced to genetics include

aggression, mental illness, antisocial behavior, and certain aspects of peoples' personalities (Siegel, 2015).

If it was possible to prove that a person's criminal behavior was a directly related to their genes, an

insanity plea or at least a lesser charge may be possible.

Methodology: Primary Data

If I was going to conduct research to learn more about the insanity plea, I believe that the best

approach would be to use a case study. A case study is an in depth analysis of one unit of study, such as

an individual, an institution, a group, or a community (Siegel, 2015). Part of the case study would include

interviewing defendants whom were both successful and unsuccessful with using the insanity plea. This

would allow me to observe and learn about their current and past mental states and to determine more

about their patterns of behavior. I would also be interested in interviewing them to gain a sense of their

family history in terms of mental illness and whether there is a possibility of genetic evidence to support

their claims of insanity. Furthermore, I would interview judges and attorneys that served on cases where

the insanity plea was attempted. I would also review court cases and court transcripts, if possible, to get a

better sense of how the defendants carried themselves in court and how the case played out. Learning

more about the judicial side of each case would give insight on how insanity please are handled as far as

how the trial proceeds and what kinds of evidence is presented to convince the jury that insanity was a

major cause of the crime that took place. Overall this case study would allow me to see possible patterns,

similarities, and differences that might lead to a better understanding of the relationship between insanity

and crime

7

Findings & Conclusion

Through research I was able to find that the insanity plea is an extremely complex defense that

can be difficult to prove and furthermore the aftercare that follows successful insanity defense acquittees

can be just as complex. The findings also show that the insanity defense is not employed in the court

room very often, due to the difficulty of proving whether the defendant was truly insane at the time of the

crime. Ultimately, while many insanity pleas argue that the defendant has biological or psychological

factors that influenced criminal behavior, these arguments rarely stand up in court, mainly due to the fact

that they are difficult to prove. Furthermore, a judge cannot force a defendant to plead innocent by

reasons of insanity and due to the stigma that is associated with the insanity plea, as well as the possibility

of longer hospitalization than jail time, many defendants would rather be found guilty than innocent by

reason of insanity. For the small few that successfully use the insanity plea and are found not guilty there

is a possibility of being treated at an inpatient care facility. In Conclusion, the factors that influence all of

these outcomes and possibilities are extremely varied in every sense.

8

References:

Richie, W. D., Alam, F., Gazula, L., Embrack, H., Nathani, M., & Bailey, R. K. (2014). Frendak

to Phenis to Breivik: an examination of the imposed insanity defense. Frontiers In

Psychiatry, 5, 51-7. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00172

Siegel, Larry. (2015). Criminology the Core (5th edition). Stamford, CT. Cengage Learning

Smith, S. (2012). Neuroscience, Ethics and Legal Responsibility: The Problem of the Insanity

Defense. Science & Engineering Ethics, 18(3), 475-481. doi:10.1007/s11948-012

9390-7

Stredny, R. V., Parker, A. S., & Dibble, A. E. (2012). Evaluator Agreement in Placement

Recommendations for Insanity Acquittees. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 30(3), 297

307. doi:10.1002/bsl.1995