The Insanity Defense

1555 Words7 Pages
The insanity defense is a plea that has been used around the world and has been controversial at times due to the nature of the crimes in which it has been used. Many lawyers, psychiatrists, psychologist, professors, and judges share different views on whether the insanity defense should be abolished. After researching and learning a great deal concerning this defense, I believe the insanity defense should be abolished . I believe that if a defendant is found guilty of a criminal act, then they should be given the same punishment regardless if they are considered criminally insane or not. This essay will discuss the history of the defense, views that support the defense, and the views of those who wish to abolish the defense. First, let us…show more content…
Mens rea means a guilty mind and actus reus means a guilty action (Torry). This requires that one did something knowingly to harm another. Neither one alone is considered a criminal act. Now how do we define insanity? Insanity is “any mental disorder severe enough that is prevents a person from having legal capacity and excuses the person from criminal or civil responsibility. Insanity is legal, not a medical, standard,” according to Black’s Law Dictionary (Torry). Insanity is described as a disorder that impairs someone from distinguishing between right and wrong. The insanity defense began its history in 1505 with the very first recorded case in which the defendant was acquitted by reason of insanity (Torry). The first insanity test standard was set by William Lambarde who said, “If a madman or a natural fool (congenitally retarded), or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy (episode of disorder), or a child that apparently hath no knowledge of good nor evil do kill a man, this is no felonious act…for they cannot be said to have any understanding will” (Torry). The next standard was set by Judge Tracy in the 1724 English case of Rex v.…show more content…
Berger, M.D., discuss why the insanity defense should not be abolished. Within this debate they compare an individual that has committed a criminal act that cannot distinguish between right or wrong to that of a child. Today, children are not tried as adults because of the very reason their brains are not developed to the point that society feels they can adequately distinguish between right and wrong. Kuby states, “If a person doesn’t know the difference between his wife and a grapefruit, and he carves up the former, thinking it’s the latter, we don’t hold that person criminally responsible.” Kuby also says the same of a Vietnam veteran who consistently has flashbacks and acts out because of them. These professionals like many others feel that these people should be treated inside of a hospital versus prison for the crimes they committed (Kuby). They feel like the patients will get the help they need. Berger stresses that even in Biblical times that certain individuals were not held responsible for their actions, because they could not understand the consequences to those actions. Boleyn states that defendants who are sent to mental institutions often spend more time there than they would have in prison. The number of cases that plead insanity are approximately 1%, which is a very
Open Document