Running head: USING THE INSANITY DEFENSE TO CHEAT THE SYSTEM
1
Using the Insanity Defence to Cheat the System
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date
USING THE INSANITY DEFENSE TO CHEAT THE SYSTEM
2
Introduction
The insanity defense has, for a long time, been part of the United States Criminal
Justice System (White, 2011). It is one of the contentious defense tactics used by offenders
who seek to escape liability or punishments for their illegal actions. For some criminals, the
idea that they will spend a substantial portion of their life in prison is too much to take
(White, 2011). They see the insanity defense as a way out of such an encumbrance. The
actions of such elements have, for quite some time, been the subject of debate for legal
scholars and lawyers alike (Adjorlo & Abdul-Nasiru, 2016). The contentious issue is whether
the defense accords criminals without genuine mental illness issues with a loophole to escape
justice. Some commentators are steadfast in their calls for reforms to get instituted in this area
to prevent the miscarriage of justice (Adjorlo et al., 2019). The policies under the federal
insanity defense towards legitimate mentally ill individuals who genuinely need professional
help not only liberates non-mentally ill criminals to avoid serving their full sentences in
federal prison but also them disrespecting the system and what it stands for.
The Insanity Defense
There are two vital elements required before a criminal get convicted. The first is
mens rea, which involves having the requisite mental capacity to understand what criminal
conduct entails (Askosan, 2016). The second element is actus reus, which represents the
criminal act perpetrated by an offender (Askosan, 2016). The inability of persons with mental
illness to understand that what they did amounted to criminal conduct is a fundamental tenet
of the insanity defense. It is one of the arguments that seek to counteract the presence of mens
rea during the commission of crimes. The defense stems from the ideology that mental illness
can substantively hamper the formation of mens rea.
Most people assume that medical insanity is like legal insanity (Feurstein et al., 2005).
However, the two are distinct but related. Legal insanity is a bit burdensome to establish than
USING THE INSANITY DEFENSE TO CHEAT THE SYSTEM
3
medical insanity. The main difference between the two stems from the divergent goals of the
medical field and the criminal system. The core aim of the medical field is to ensure that all
persons with health issues get the appropriate treatment. Within the legal system, the critical
objective is handing out punishments for offenders. The legal system does not seek to allow
offenders to escape liability (Feurstein et al., 2005). Such a tenet is what forces those within
the legal system to be quite apprehensive of any defense that might allow a guilty defendant
to walk scot-free. They had to set up safeguards as a way of balancing the two competing
interests.
The insanity defense rests on two critical elements. One, an offender with any mental
illness, gets regarded as not having any control over what they do or how it gets done (Math
et al., 2015). It means that an insane person, due to their illness, lacks the capability of
curtailing their affliction towards the commission of a crime (Adjorlo et al., 2019). The
second element is that insane people are unable to conceptualize the requisite criminal intent.
They cannot comprehend that what they are doing contravenes the law and, as such, do not
consider their actions as faulty. Incarcerating such people will not prevent them from
engaging in similar conduct, which then means that the best way to handle such a person is to
prescribe treatment for them at a mental health facility to help them get a handle on the
disease affecting them.
The defense is commonly used by defendants who face the possibility of getting
longer sentences (Borum & Fulero, 2009). To differentiate between the genuinely mentally ill
offenders and the imposers, the courts came up with a variety of tests that will enable them to
weed out those seeking to escape the repercussions of engaging in criminal conduct. The
most common test used within the United States legal system is the M’Naghten test (Borum
& Fulero, 2009). It first came about during the trial of Daniel M'Naghten, who got charged
with the murder of the secretary to the then Prime Minister of UK (1843). When committing
USING THE INSANITY DEFENSE TO CHEAT THE SYSTEM
4
the crime, he was under the illusion that the Prime Minister was trying to kill him. Such a
belief pushed him to launch an attack aimed at the PM but instead killed his secretary.
M’Naghten asserted the defense of insanity and witnesses testified to the fact that he was
insane. He got acquitted of the crime on the grounds of being insane. The House of Lords
picked up the matter and modified it, requiring courts to engage defendants in an attempt to
establish if they understood their actions were wrong. If they manage to do this, they can then
acquit the offender.
The test revolves around the comprehension of an offender that their actions were
wrong or illegal and not their lack of control (Daftary-Kapur et al., 2011). The courts, with
the help of a psychiatrist, have first to establish that a person citing the defense was suffering
from a mental ailment when they were involved in the commission of a crime. Secondly,
mental illness or impairment must have been so substantial that it interfered with the capacity
of an offender to understand the wrongful nature of their actions (Daftary-Kapur et al., 2011).
For most defendants using this defense, they will begin by asserting that when they
committed a crime, they were unaware that what took place was wrong. What exactly the
term "wrong" entails is left to individual jurisdictions to define.
The Durham test is another mechanism used to weed out imposters seeking to use the
insanity defense (Daftary-Kapur et al., 2011). The test is a product of the Durham case and is
much broader than the M’Naghten test (1954). When applying this test, courts must
interrogate whether the offender's actions are a resultant effect of the mental ailment affecting
them. It is by far more lenient than other tests, and if cited, the chances of acquittal are
incredibly high. If a person asserts that their ailment impaired their decision-making capacity,
they will escape liability. To deal with the loophole created by the Durham test, the Model
Penal Code Act got introduced. It sought to fix the issues that allowed defendants to escape
liability.
USING THE INSANITY DEFENSE TO CHEAT THE SYSTEM
5
Abuse of the Insanity Defense
Even though the success rate is quite low, most defendants, especially those facing the
possibility of getting longer sentences, introduce the insanity defense at one point during their
trial (Kachulis, 2017). They believe doing this accords them with an opportunity to get away
with criminal conduct. Critics were increasingly castigating the use of the defense because
they believe that it is a form of “get out of jail card” for criminals (Kachulis, 2017). When
asserting this defense, a mentally stable defendant will seek to mislead the triers of facts that
their mental state could not allow them to fathom that what they were doing amounted to a
criminal violation.
To successfully use the insanity defense, a person charged with an offense has to
admit to the crime. In the Clark v. Arizona case, the defendant unsuccessfully attempted to
use the defense to avoid getting incarcerated for murder (2006). Clark asserted that he killed a
law enforcement officer under the illusion that the state of Arizona was under attack from
aliens, and he had the responsibility of dealing with the aliens. He accepted that he killed the
officer but used his previously diagnosed schizophrenia as an excuse for his actions.
However, the court rejected his defense and instead convicted him. Clark appealed his
incarceration up to the highest court in the United States. The judges agreed with the decision
of the trial court that testimony from a psychiatrist that a person is insane is not enough to
prove that they should get committed to a mental institution and not get sent to jail. Justice
scouter, in particular, pointed out that defendants who actively seek to justify their actions by
alluding to their inability to comprehend what they were thinking when committing a crime is
one of the indicators that a person is not insane.
The most cited case when seeking to show the flaws of the insanity defense that
criminals take advantage of is the John Hinckley case (Kachulis, 2017). Hinckley was
suffering from mental ailments, which propelled him to start obsessing over Jodie Foster, an
USING THE INSANITY DEFENSE TO CHEAT THE SYSTEM
6
American actress. To impress his subject of obsession, he shot the then United States
President, Ronald Regan. Hinckley was able to successfully use the defense to avoid
incarceration, after showing that his conduct resulted from the effects of the mental illness
affecting him (Kachulis, 2017). The American people were incensed with the decision of the
courts because they believed Hinckley had managed to get away with murder. To quell the
outrage, Congress decided to seal the loophole that Hinckley exploited by coming up with the
Insanity Defense Reform Act in 1984. They sought to make it harder for offenders to use the
defense by requiring that a person proves that not only were they mentally ill but also that
their condition precluded them from forming the requisite criminal intent.
It is a common fallacy that those who use the defense are more likely than not to
avoid going to jail, thereby avoiding punishment (Buttner, 2013). However, this is not the
case in the United States. Juries accept this defense approximately twenty percent of the time.
For those who manage to use it, the alternative is not that better than staying in prison. They
end up getting confined in mental asylums for extended periods, getting treatment for their
ailments. It is not a path most would like to follow. Raising this defense also has another
downside. If it is unsuccessfully introduced, the repercussions are very dire. Judges will more
often than not impose very harsh sentences because they believe that such offenders were
attempting to circumvent the wheels of justice and deceive them (Buttner, 2013). By handing
down the severe penalties, the judges believe that doing so acts as a deterrent to others with
similar inclinations, thereby limiting the use of the defense as a way of avoiding
incarceration.
The media has a hand in the negative perception embraced by the public regarding the
application of the insanity defense (Kachulis, 2017). They will sensationalize high profile
cases, where the defense gets cited further, fuelling the notion that their use only comes up
when people are seeking to avoid responsibility for their criminal conduct. The case of Eddie
USING THE INSANITY DEFENSE TO CHEAT THE SYSTEM
7
Ray Routh is the perfect illustration of this phenomenon (Kachulis, 2017). Routh dealt with
schizophrenia and PTSD stemming from his involvement in the war in Iraq. He believed that
these ailments are the reason why he shot and killed a fellow veteran by the name Chris Kyle
and their companion, Littlefield. Routh introduced the insanity defense after getting charged
with murder, stating that he did not understand that his conduct was wrong. However, his
attempts to plead to insanity were unsuccessful. The case elicited immense public interest,
and the media did little to quell the emotions around the situation. The press consistently
portrayed the case in a negative light, especially the fact that Routh was using the insanity
defense (Kachulis, 2017).
As it is currently, the insanity defense is very strict and exclusive, an aspect that
informs the number of persons citing this case when faced with criminal charges (Kachulis,
2017). The number of people who cite this defense is very few. Even for those who introduce
the defense during their trial will rarely succeed. In the United States, for example, jurors
have a pre-conceived bias against the use of this defense. Most of them believe that an
offender's reason for using this defense is there need to escape punishment (Kachulis, 2017).
With such an impression, jurors then impose stricter rules regarding the acquittal of persons
using the insanity defense. Their ideology regarding the use of this defense stems from the
negative portrayal of the defense by members of the press. Various changes have to get
implemented so that more deserving persons, who are mentally ill offenders, can utilize the
defense as a way out so that they can access the necessary treatment (Kachulis, 2017).
Conclusion
The insanity defense is not as common as people would like to believe. For the
people who decide to use this defense as justification for their actions, the success rate is
quite low. Some might get away with using this defense. However, they do not just go scot-
free as they must spend a significant part of their lives confined in mental institutions before
USING THE INSANITY DEFENSE TO CHEAT THE SYSTEM
8
rejoining society. The legal system has various safeguards that prevent instances where
offenders use the insanity defense to escape punishment. So far, they have made it harder for
criminals to use the defense as a loophole.
References
Adjorlo, S., Chan, H.C., & Delisi, M. (2019). Mentally disordered offenders and the law:
Research update on the insanity defense. International Journal of Law and
Psychiatry, 67.
Adjorlo, S., & Abdul-Nasiru, I. (2016). Attitudes towards the Insanity Defense: Examination
of the Factor Structure of Attitude-Revised (IDA-R) Scale in Ghana. International
Journal of Forensic Health, 16(1), 33-45.
Askosan, T.V., (2016). The Insanity Defense Related Issues. Indian Journal of Psychiatry,
58(2), 191-198.
Borum, R., & Fulero, S.M. (2009). Empirical Research on the Insanity Defense and
Attempted Reforms: Evidence Towards informed Policy. Law Human Behaviour, 23,
375-394.
Buttner, R. (2013, April 3). Mentally Ill, but insanity plea is a long shot." New York Times.
Retrieved from httpes://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/04/nyregion/mental-illness-is-no-
guarantee-insanity-defense-will-work-for-traloff.html.
Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735, (2006)
Daftary-Kapur, T. et al. (2011). “Measuring Knowledge of the Insanity Defense: Scale
Construction and Validation. Behave Science Law, 29(40).
Durham v. United States, 214 F.2d 862 D.C. Cir. (1954).
Feurstein, S., Fortunali, F., Morgan, C.A., et al. (2005). The Insanity Defense. Psychiatry
(Edgmont), 2(9), 25-25.
USING THE INSANITY DEFENSE TO CHEAT THE SYSTEM
9
Kachulis, L. (2017). Insane in the Mens Rea: Why insanity defense reform is long overdue.
Review of Law and Social Justice, 26(3), 246-270.
Math, S.B., Kumar, C.N., & Moringhem, S. (2015). Insanity Defense: Past, Present, and
Future. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 37(4), 381=387.
R v. M’Naghten. E.R. & 718; (1843) 10 Cl. & F. 200.
White, M.D. (2011, January 21). Debating the Insanity defense. Psychology Today. Retrieved
from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/maybe-its-just-me/201101/debating-
the-insanity-defense
