|
Insanity defense
scrutinized
(June
2006 Issue)
By Phyllis Hanlon
The insanity defense recently came under scrutiny when an Arizona
man claimed he shot a police officer in defense, believing him to
be an alien. The defendant was denied an opportunity to present
evidence of his mental illness and the case landed in the Supreme
Court.
According to Eric Mart, Ph.D., board-certified psychologist in
Manchester, N.H., the insanity defense dates back to the time of
the Romans and contains a long string of recognizable names including
Jack Ruby, John Hinckley, David Berkowitz, aka "Son of Sam," "Unabomber"
Theodore Kaczynski and Jeffrey Dahmer. All but Hinckley were found
guilty.
Today's insanity defense is based upon an 1843 ruling that took
place in England. Called the M'Naughten Rule, this plea presumes
every individual to be sane; insanity might be declared if convincing
evidence that the defendant "labored under defect of reason, disease
of mind," and couldn't distinguish right from wrong is produced.
In 1887, the Irresistible Impulse test, which established the defendant's
inability to restrain his actions, became a litmus test for determining
insanity. At approximately the same time, New Hampshire adopted
the Durham Rule, which states that the defendant is "criminally
responsible if his unlawful act is the product of a mental disease
or defect." This test is criticized for failing to define mental
disease or defect and product; the Granite State is the only one
to use this standard.
In 1962, the American Law Institute (ALI) created a Model Penal
Code that incorporated these three standards; eighteen states still
follow the ALI Model Penal Code, including those in New England.
Additionally, all New England states place the burden of proving
insanity on the defendant, except Massachusetts, which places the
burden of proof on the prosecution.
According to Mart, an insanity defense comprises two components:
action and intention. And not only high profile cases prompt an
insanity defense, he adds. Nuisance crimes, such as "raving," urinating
outdoors, pushing and issuing criminal threats may result in an
insanity plea. He explains that if a developmentally disabled person
commits a lewd or socially unacceptable act, society usually understands
the situation and will not hold him responsible. Mart says, "People
are more likely to cut some slack if the crime is sleeping under
a bridge, rather than killing a whole neighborhood."
Mart says, "The insanity defense serves as a catchment, a protection
for the severely mentally ill."
Although the insanity defense garners significant media coverage,
the plea seldom results in acquittal. "Fewer than one percent [of
cases] involve the insanity defense," says Mart. "Very few are successful."
Even if defendants are found insane, they are usually remanded to
a psychiatric facility where they will most likely spend as much
time as they would have had they been convicted and sent to prison.
Mart explains that a "breakdown in the mental health system" and
lack of funding for mental health services is "turning jails into
mental hospitals of last resort."
Mart says that one of the biggest problems with the insanity defense
is the length of time between the actual crime and the trial. "If
the crime took place years ago, how do you know his state of mind
at the time of the crime?" he asks. "By the time you see the person,
he might have been on medication and had therapy. It's a retrospective
assessment, similar to a psychological autopsy, but the person is
still alive."
Amber Douglas, Ph.D., assistant professor of psychology in the
Department of Psychology and Education at Mount Holyoke College,
points out that standard assessments are performed to determine
if the insanity defense is a viable option. "A diagnosis from the
DSM-IV is not sufficient," she says. "You have to have a formal
interview with a forensic psychologist or psychiatrist. You have
to show symptoms that impair ability. A couple of standard assessment
tests with varying degrees of success are also applied."
Douglas adds that a tremendous amount of third-party information
will be gathered as well. "A therapist or other social service agency
will step forward, leading to discoveries that will help understand
the psychological history," she says. "There should be indicators
prior to the offense. The person should have been getting support."
"We still understand so little how trauma affects the mind and
the brain," Douglas says. "The way we ask questions is the best
threshold we currently have." The reasons some people respond to
stimuli and others don't remains a mystery. "In a lot of ways, our
definition of insane is inconsistent with what the psychological
community believes. I'd love to see these two come together," says
Douglas.
"Whether the Supreme Court comes out with a standard ruling for
the states to infer insanity or not, I can't begin to guess. But
I am most concerned that the court will remove state autonomy in
these cases. Whether states adopt ALI or something more conservative
is an individual matter," says Douglas.
|
