EMMANUEL CHUKWUEMEKA (U6)
Introduction
The insanity plea is an appeal from a defendant to reduce or completely remove responsibility for the crimes they are being charged with. This is usually due to them possessing a mental defect/illness that may influence behaviour to an extent that results in crimes being committed to any degree such as: antisocial personality disorder, kleptomania, psychopathy, obsessive compulsive disorder and intermittent explosive disorder. These are all disorders that can then lead to the sufferer committing crimes (of varying extremity) that they do not deserve the full repercussions of.
What is Insanity in Criminals
Stephen J. Morse (the author of ‘Mental Disorder and Criminal Insanity’) gave a broad and convoluted description but summarises mental disorder as a manifestation of a behavioural, psychological or biological dysfunction in the individual, although even he acknowledges this definition as vague and too subjective to then be used to enforce special treatments. He then later goes on to state that for legal purposes it is best to understand mental disorder and insanity as behaviour that both makes no sense and is associated with dysfunction or suffering. This description of insanity from the eyes of the legal system can be viewed as clear and simplistic without leaning too far towards the reductionist perspective; however with this simplicity there can be less adaptability for these rules in case of special situations. An example of an area that may be classed as insanity or a mental disorder but would not classify as one under this definition would be scrupulosity (a psychological disorder associated with extreme obsessions of religious issues/beliefs that can often result in highly maladaptive or distressing behaviour); due to any action and crime committed due to this disorder stemming from their religious beliefs it not only makes sense but does not relate to any suffering (physically or mentally) within the perpetrator. This is an example of where the legal system may be flawed however this is an outdated example of how the legal system viewed insanity (taken from an article written in 1973).
Previous Methods of Convicting Insane Criminals
Many legal practitioners and academics/authors (such as Stephen J. Morse) do not believe it is ethical to prosecute criminals dealing with insanity or any other mental disorder using the same laws and rules that would be used when trialling and prosecuting sane criminals. This belief stems from the idea that ‘insane’ criminals are unable to function as law abiding citizens as easily as a sane criminal would have been able to; usually do to them not understanding the morality of the crimes they commit or an unnatural and uncontrollable urge to commit these crimes. Due to these beliefs held, rules and requirements have been developed in countries such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom to provide these insane criminals with the latitude they deserve.
The M’Naghten Rule
One of the earliest methods of proving insanity was the M’Naghten rule (as mentioned in ‘The Corporate Insanity Defense’ by Mihalis E. Diamantis) was founded after the Daniel M’Naghten case in 1843. The M'Naghten rule requires that the defendant must be unable to recognise that the crime they have committed is morally or legally wrong. A major/clear example of where this rule may fail in prosecution is in the case of Ted Bundy in 1979. Ted Bundy demonstrated clear signs of insanity; being a sociopath who knew what he was doing was wrong and then went on to avoid capture but under the M’Naghten Rule Ted Bundy would be prosecuted as a sane man (although in this specific case the outcome would not change). In ‘The American Law Institute’s Insanity Test’ proposes the belief that as long as a defendant was able to recognise the morality of the crimes they were committing they should be forced to take responsibility for these actions.
This test was then modified in Massachusetts and elsewhere within American states to include the term, ‘irresistible impulse’. An accurate definition for this term would be ‘an overpowering compulsion to commit an act that blinds any moral awareness’. Although this development adapts the original test to include more nuance in their verification, this version of the M’Naghten rule (much like the original version) still prioritises legal responsibility rather than an actual medical diagnosis of insanity. With these rules in place legitimate insane criminals or criminals dealing with a mental disorder may be released back into society when given the not-guilty due to insanity verdict rather than being sent to a mental institution to receive the proper help they require.
The Irresistible Impulse Rule
This shares many similarities with the prior rule (the M’Naghten rule) with the most significant difference being its focus on defendants that understood their legal and moral wrongdoings whilst committing the crime but were unable to control their actions. This rule derives from the Parsons Vs State case of 1887 where the Alabama court stated that despite the fact the defendant could understand that the crime he was committing was wrong his mental disease revoked the ability for him to choose between right and wrong, meaning his free agency was revoked and he was compelled to complete the action. For the accused to use this as his defence they must provide the court with evidence of a pre-existing mental illness (specifically one that’s symptoms involve the person losing control of themselves and their actions). After various states accepted this rule as a valid form of defence, it was integrated into the M’Naghten rule as it follows many of the same beliefs and requirements. Even when coupled with the M’Naghten rule, the Irresistible Impulse fails to take into account the impossibility of determining which acts were uncontrollable and which acts were committed with the full command of the defendant.
The Durham Rule
This rule originated in New Hampshire in 1871 but the ‘Durham VS United States’ case of 1945 is what made this rule more of a standard in US courts. This rule states that a defendant cannot be found responsible for the crime they are being charged with if it was a result of a mental disease or defect the defendant was suffering from at the time of committing the crime. An example of this rule in effect is if there was a person suffering from paranoia, due to this paranoia they eventually kill an innocent person claiming it to be self-defence as they believed they would have been killed first if they had not acted. This person would be guiltless under the Durham Rule. This rule was removed in the US courts and was modified in New Hampshire due to the requirement for a successful insanity plea being too broad. Many drug addicts were able to use this rule to escape any charges related to their addictions as were many gamblers. These two examples highlight the fact that this rule left room for manipulation for sane criminals to exploit this plea in exchange for lessened sentences or usually no sentence at all. In recent years convincing evidence is required when this rule is in use to provide proper evidence that this defendant suffers from a mental disease or defect. It is mentioned in ‘The American Law Institute’s Insanity Test’ (by the Duke University School of Law) that many critics feel that there is not enough guidance given to juries to differentiate what is a genuine and disingenuous insanity plea. Referring back to the drug dealers who were cleared of their charges by this rule, it is blatant how vague the guidance provided to the jury was and how easily mistaken they could’ve been when deciding upon these verdicts.
The Model Penal Code
The Model Penal Code rule became common practice during the 1970s due to it allowing more flexibility than the other rules available. The most significant difference between this test and the previously mentioned ones is the fact the Model Penal Code rule requires a medical diagnosis with a relevant mental defect coupled with the defendant being unable to either appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. In other words the requirements of this rule is to make sure the defendant has a validated insanity and due to that was unable to truly understand the crime he was committing at the time. To support the reliability of the verification of the defendant's diagnosis, the court will appoint its own mental health professional to diagnose the defendant, confirming the mental defect the defendant may claim to have. Another slight difference between this test and the M’Naghten rule is the mental capacity required for the insane defendant to take responsibility. “Substantial capacity” is what is required by the Model Penal Code to override any objections to liability, contrasting to the “total incapacity” required by the M’Naghten rule when pleading insanity under it. Due to this difference, it places more significance on the opinion of the court’s unbiased psychiatrist; giving more power to a medical diagnosis in place of the morality based judgements of a jury or of a judge.
In spite of how progressive this rule may seem in comparison to the ones previously mentioned, as discussed in ‘Some Weak Points in the Model Penal Code’ by Rollin M. Perkins, the Model Penal Code lacks true definitions. Rollin M. Perkins states that a true definition consists of three major facets: the term, the genus and the differentia. The term is the subject being defined (in this instance it would be insanity), the genus is the placement of this subject in a group of like-things and the differentia is the feature that distinguishes this subject from others in its group. An example of this would be, “crime is any social harm defined and made punishable by law”. Having a clear definition of a subject makes it easier to categorise similar or identical subjects together. The issue arises in relation to the Model Penal Code with the fact that none of these terms has provided a definition of insanity with a differentia; resulting in there being no noticeable difference between genuine insanity and faked insanity. This then leads to a system that is easily manipulated to help convicts receive lesser sentences and although it was brought up under the context of the Model Penal Code, this same dilemma can be found within almost all the previously mentioned rules of insanity. This can be viewed as a key exploit in the justice system as to how it has historically been exploited by those using the insanity plea.