Insanity
The insanity defense refers to that branch of the concept of insanity, which defines the extent to which men accused of crimes may be relieved of criminal responsibility by virtue of mental disease. ... Due to these factors, there are several problems raised by the existence of the insanity defense. ... I believe that these problems, as well as others which will be mentioned later, lead to the conclusion that the insanity defense is useless and should be abolished entirely. Insanity is a legal, not a medical, definition. Therefore, mental illness and insanity are not synonymous: only some mental illness constitutes insanity. Insanity, however, includes not only mental illness but also mental deficiencies. ... The legal concepts of mental illness and insanity raise questions in a conflict between what are termed legalistic criminology and scientific criminology: mens rea, punishment v. ... TESTING FOR INSANITY At the center of the legal use of insanity lies the mens rea. ... The test is also misleading in its suggestion that where a crime is committed as a result of emotional disorder due to insanity, it must be sudden and impulsive. Two other tests are, The Durham Rule (also known as the Products Test) which is based on the contention that insanity represents many personality factors, all of which may not be present in every case, and the Substantial Capacity Test, which focuses on the reason and will of the accused. ... MENTAL ILLNESS AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR In the insanity defense we have no variable aside from the criminal behavior we are studying. Insanity refers to a class of behaviors known by observing the behavior of the patient, and criminality is a class of behavior likewise known by observing the behavior of the defendant. ... We certainly cannot conclude that mental illness has any relationship to diseases of the brain, nor can we conclude that mental illness or insanity causes criminal behavior. THE MYTH OF MENTAL ILLNESS Not only is there no agreement as to the meaning of insanity and mental illness, but to add further confusion, there is a school of thought that states that mental illness is a myth and does not exist. ... As we have already seen, there is much confusion dealing with the placement of insanity and mental illness, its definition, and even its very existence. ... This information alone would lead anyone to believe that the insanity defense needs at least to be revised and improved in many areas. What we have not looked at, however, is the implementation of the actual judgment of insanity; that is, the actual results of the defense when successful. ... There are several decisions which can be reached when insanity is at last proven. These judgements include not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI), and guilty but mentally ill (GMI), with the later verdict not being implemented until the early eighties in an attempt to reform the insanity defense and decrease the amount of NGI verdicts. The NGI verdict is the more dangerous verdict and the one which I believe has the strongest argument against the insanity defense. ... This is the reality of the insanity defense which I find hard to argue against; in many cases criminals are released due to loopholes such as the insanity defense to simply commit the same crime again. ... ABOLISH THE INSANITY DEFENSE Abolishing the insanity defense is easier said than done for the simple reason that the mens rea requirement remains a fundamental legal principle. ... It is doubtful that anyone againt the insanity defense would choose to take this approach.