The Insanity Defense: Recommendations and Potential Reforms

Part 1: Policy Brief

Executive Summary

The American judicial system endures many unique challenges when mental illness is introduced as a factor in criminal cases. Some defendants use this as a defense mechanism to claim that their insanity caused a lapse of judgment or a diminished capacity to notice that their actions are morally incorrect. 

This policy brief is targeted toward the American government, specifically President Joe Biden, Congress, and others it may concern. Additionally, I intend to discuss the various aspects of criminally insane defenses, including background information, criteria, challenges and possible changes that can be made to improve the current policies in place to create a more fair and just judicial system. 

Introduction

The criminally insane defense is a defense mechanism in which the defendant claims that he or she was not in a sane state of mind when the crime was committed. In addition, the defendant must admit to committing the crime but claim that he or she was not in the right state of mind at the time it was carried out. This is an affirmative defense, meaning that if proven to be true, it can be a legal basis for the defendant to seek treatment rather than take full accountability for the crime by going to prison. 

In the current American legal system, pleading criminally insane is equivalent to pleading not guilty. Further, the defendant is pleading to a lesser crime by using this defense. The defendant claims that they should not be held criminally responsible for the actions committed during their lapse of sanity.  The purpose of this mechanism is an attempt to avoid institutionalizing the mentally ill without proper treatment to rehabilitate them after the trial has concluded. This legal concept has been the subject of debate and controversy since it was introduced. 

History

This defense dates back as early as 1581, when a legal treatise was distinguished that states that “if a madman or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy do [kill a man], this is no felonious act for they cannot be said to have any understanding will.” (PBS, “A Crime of Insanity - Insanity on Trial”) 

The guidelines for approaching this type of defense was created in 1843 and is derived from the case of Daniel M’Naughten in the United Kingdom. M’Naughten shot and killed Sir Robert Peel, the secretary of the British Prime Minister, in an attempt to murder the Prime Minister. This assassination attempt was due to M'Naughten's fervent belief that the Prime Minister was conspiring against him and causing his financial troubles. This case is particularly important because it provides the legal framework for the insanity defense. (PBS, “A Crime of Insanity - Insanity on Trial”) 

There have been many other historical examples that helped to shape the current insanity defense in the American judicial system. In 1835, Richard Lawrence attempted to assassinate Andrew Jackson, yet failed due to his gun misfiring. When this case was taken to trial, the defense revealed that Lawrence was a house painter and was exposed to harmful chemicals daily. Due to his chronic exposure to the chemicals in paint, the jury was led to believe that the chemicals altered his brain chemistry and influenced his judgment. Therefore, the court concluded that Lawrence was criminally insane and sent him to several mental institutions until his death (The Infographics Show, 4:03). In today’s society, it is extremely difficult to win an insanity defense, as it has one of the lowest success rates.  (The Infographics Show, 3:51) 

Criteria

The criteria for deeming one as criminally insane depends predominantly on the defendant’s competency. In accordance with the due process model, a defendant is unable to stand trial if they are determined to be legally incompetent. A defendant is determined to be incompetent if they are unable to communicate rationally with their attorney or are incapable of comprehending the nature of legal proceedings or charges against them. The defendant must also demonstrate that they do not recognize the wrongfulness of the crime due to severe mental health disorder. (Samantello, 94).  More specific criteria depend on jurisdiction of the state the defendant is being prosecuted in. If the defendant cannot stand trial, the insanity case becomes moot, meaning that there is no reason to continue the trial. 

Challenges

The insanity defense has faced several challenges and controversies throughout the years. One challenge is that the criteria is not clear and established, leaving it inconsistent and open-ended. The criteria often varies across state and judge jurisdictions. Another criticism is that the term “insanity” can stigmatize mental illness, reversing the efforts to destigmatize mental health in today’s society. The concern for public safety is another large challenge this defense faces. An individual who is a danger to society could be released by means of insanity, but it is possible that this individual will commit the same crime again, if not worse. Therefore, this defense should be more concise and difficult to achieve successfully. 

Reforms and Policy Recommendations

Through conducting my research, I have devised possible reforms or policy recommendations to improve the current judicial system’s approach to the insanity defense. The first proposed improvement is that the issue of insanity should be decided by a panel of three judges rather than a jury. A jury is not as experienced in the legal systems as a judge. Oftentimes, a jury acts on emotion and are more likely to determine if someone is guilty based on the appalling nature of the crime rather than the defendant’s disoriented mental state. 

Mental health evaluations could also be effective in improving the insanity defense system. Experts determining the results of the mental health evaluations ensure that there are no biases when evaluating these individuals. This is beneficial because the experts will focus on the defendant’s mental state rather than the nature of the crime. 

A third policy recommendation is to create standardized criteria for courts to abide by. This can be done by making clear and comprehensive criteria on a federal level, in order to establish consistency across all state jurisdictions. This recommendation prioritizes “clear and convincing” features over proving guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The fourth policy recommendation is treatment and rehabilitation for those who are not mentally cognizant. Diversion programs that catch mental illnesses early and have been proven to treat them early and effectively. Public awareness and attention also reduces the stigma that surrounds mental illness. 

Finally, the United States judicial system can invest in monitoring and reviewing the defendants that are determined have mental struggles. This can be done through post-release monitoring to assess their progress and prevent potential risks for public safety. Although this system can be somewhat difficult to keep track of, the system can be similar to probation, where the individual has an assigned officer to monitor their progress and treatment sessions. 

Conclusion 

There are many potential consequences to not improving the current legal system. For instance, people with mental disabilities may be institutionalized and receive a lack of proper care. However, if the insanity defense is too easy to attain, dangerous individuals could commit the same crime or worse.

The insanity defense continues to be a complex aspect of the American judicial system. There must be a delicate balance of people’s societal rights and needs; this can pose many challenges. Therefore, the policy reforms presented throughout this brief should be considered to protect the American peoples’ wants and needs. The aim of these reforms should be through a fair, consistent and compassionate approach that respects the rights of those with mental disabilities, as well as protecting the well-being of society. 

Works Cited

“A Crime of Insanity - Insanity on Trial” PBS, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/history.html Accessed 26 October 2023

Samantello, Heather. “Past, Present and Future: The Legal Standard in Determining the Mental Competency of a Defendant to Represent pro per in California.” Western State University Law Review, vol. 38, no. 1, 2010, pp. 94. https://heinonline-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/wsulr38&id=96&men_tab=srchresults

The Infographics Show, “What Does it Mean to be Criminally Insane” YouTube, uploaded by The Infographics Show, 5 Sep. 2021

Part 2: Reflection 

After completing my second writing project, I immediately decided that I will be writing a policy brief for my third writing project.  I decided to write in this genre because I have never written a policy brief and felt that it was fitting for the topic I chose and my future career goals. I focused my annotated bibliography on the connection between mental health and the law. I centered my research on this topic because I am a current psychology major and am vastly interested in the mental health field as a whole. 

Additionally, I am planning on diving into the field of law post-graduation because I have a great passion for justice and advocacy for the voiceless. Last semester, I took a criminal law class that introduced me to the insanity defense and it stuck in my mind because it is both unique and related to mental health. Furthermore, while conducting my annotated bibliography, I came across this topic once again and found many faults in the current legal system and strive to propose solutions through my writing. 

This genre has many stylistic features that I touched on in Part 1. I followed these features by using students’ past policy briefs and some that I found online to model my own brief. I found these to be particularly helpful due to my lack of prior experience writing a policy brief. In addition, I feel that writing this policy brief will help me throughout my journey of law school and beyond. I found that a policy brief has a specific structure that includes an executive summary, introduction, background, criteria, challenges, recommendations and a conclusion.

Firstly, my executive summary briefs the topics I will be discussing throughout my policy memo, as well as address President Biden, Congress and whomever else it may interest. I went on to introduce what the insanity defense is and how it is utilized in today’s legal system. Next, I provided historical context of how the insanity defense came to be, both worldwide and in the American judicial system. I then addressed the necessary criteria to be addressed when a defendant claims to be criminally insane. This defense is also extremely controversial, so I addressed the challenges that are associated with this defense. The most important aspect of this policy brief are the reforms that I suggested in order to improve the way that the insanity defense is approached in today’s legal system. 

Additionally, a policy brief addresses a specific audience, rather than an open piece intended for the general population. The audience I chose to address are policymakers including President Biden, Congress and government officials. A policy brief is a call to action by those in the position to make a change. Therefore, I chose to address these specific individuals because they have the power to make a change that will affect Americans nationwide. 

The ultimate goal of this piece is to persuade the American policymakers to reform the current insanity defense. These individuals have the power to make changes that affect the wellbeing of all Americans, including those who live with mental illnesses. Therefore, implementing these changes will be beneficial to everyone. The reforms will ensure that those with mental illnesses are protected and given proper treatment, rather than being thrown in an institution. They will also establish safety to the general public by making the insanity defense extremely thorough to make sure that those who are a true danger to society are dealt with appropriately.  My proposed reforms will make fairly certain that justice will be served and the general public is protected from any potential threat.