Ever since it's beginning in America, people have struggled with defining the insanity defense. One of the ideas was the “M'Naghten rule.” This idea came about from “a Scottish woodcutter, Daniel M'Naghten, who tried to kill Prime Minister Robert Peel but fatally shot Peel's secretary instead. M'Naghten, who insisted he was trying to stop Peel from killing him, was acquitted” (Brian Doherty 34). From this case, the conclusion was drawn that a defendant legally should not be held accountable for the crime if it was because of “a defect of reason” caused from a “disease of the mind.” This was due to the person being unaware of what he or she was doing or he or she was oblivious that it was morally wrong (Doherty 34). Believe it or not, the idea that dates back to 1843 is still a reasonable excuse for today's criminals. The insanity defense has many problems, and the government is finally realizing this reality.
A major problem with the insanity defense begins with the actually diagnosing of the illicit. Psychiatrists are said to be able to diagnose people of being “insane.” If this “insane” person committed a crime, the person is believed to be unaware of their wrong doing (Richard Vatz 57). To be used in court, one would think there would at least have to be scientific evidence to back it up. However, they do not have scientific evidence to back it up, but rather they simple observe the person. From this, psychiatrists are able to diagnose the patient. A psychiatrist for the Andrea Yates' case believed Andrea was incapable of making the decision about killing her children. Her conclusion was not based on an in-depth brain test, but it was rather found by simply observing Andrea (Doherty 34).
Because there are not set guidelines on diagnosing a patient, psychiatrists often use their own beliefs on what a person is suffering from. With everyone's opinion differing, they most often than not have different findings after simply “observing” a patient. In the case involving Andrea Yates, the psychiatrists had completely different findings. The defense psychiatrist believed that Andrea was mentally insane at the time of killing her five children. The psychiatrist stated that she was one of the “most severely mentally ill” individual she has ever treated. The prosecution psychiatrist believed something completely different compared to the defense's opinion. He believed that Andrea was not insane at the time of the crime but rather became psychotic after committing the crime (Vatz and Weinberg 48).
Once the defendant is diagnosed as being insane, the psychiatrists must make an appearance in the courtroom. At the trial, the psychiatrist is asked to give a testimony of his or her findings.
Psychiatric testimony often consists of making closing argument for the defense (or prosecution) under the guise of science, rather than applying specific expert knowledge. It may amount to accepting the sincerity of a defendant's claim that he committed his crime for a seemingly insane reason, such as a supernatural command. Or it may mean offering an alternative explanation for the crime that makes it seem as if the defendant doesn't meet the legal definition of insanity. (qtd. Brian Doherty 34).
More often than not, they are bringing forth excuses at the stand as to why the person committed the crime stating that they did not know he or she was doing the act. In order for any person to believe this, psychiatrists need to bring forth scientific evidence that shows that the convicted is unaware of a wrongdoing (Carpenter, Rappeport, et al 292). Dr. Paul Appelbaum does not believe in the psychiatric testimony. He states “that psychiatric expert testimony is less reliable than other forms of evidence,” and he also believes that “the opinion [seems] to reflect a bias against the filed of mental health” (Doherty 34).
In the past, the United States government has seen its fair share of cases that deal with the insanity defense, but none of them have brought up a public outcry equivalent to the case on the shooting of Ronald Reagan. In 1843, John Hinckley, Jr., was on case for shooting President Reagan, press secretary James Brady, and a Washington law enforcement officer. The defense believed he committed the crime because he wanted to impress Jodie Foster, an actress whom he insanely obsessed over. Of course, the defense brought up the insanity defense, and remarkably he was acquitted. The public was tremendously outraged; they could not believe the man was not sent to prison for shooting their beloved president. Congress could not ignore the thunderous objection of the public, and they consider ridding America of the insanity plea (Timothy W. Maier 10). Instead of completely abolishing the insanity defense, Congress passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act.
This act did away with the impulse test that had been used for over 100 years in the United States, and they resorted back to the M'Naghten Rule (Maier 10). Interestingly enough, the impulse test was developed because people criticized the M'Naghten Rule, but this did not stop Congress from resorting back to the beloved rule. The rule where if an insane person commits a crime they were either unaware of what they were doing or unaware that it was wrong (Ed. Jeffery Wilson 485).
In 2006, the Supreme Court heard the case of Clark v. Arizona. It involved a man name Eric Clark. He believed that “aliens” were out to kill him, and that shooting a police officer was the only solution to stop them. His lawyers' main argument was that the Arizona court broke Clark's right to due process. The Supreme Court, however, believed that this was absolutely absurd. Justice David Souter's opinion of this was that “no particular formulation [for the insanity defense] has evolved into a baseline of due process.” He even later proclaims that a state is not required to identify the insanity defense. The Supreme Court even stated that there is not proof to make a person consider psychiatrists have more knowledge on “legal and moral questions than a layman” (Doherty 34).
The insanity defense is an extremely controversial matter and has been since its beginning in America. Whenever a case involves the insanity defense, the public and court system always have a difficult time accepting the defense. Psychiatrists have yet to find a better method of diagnosing an individual as “insane.” The problems with the insanity defense are never ending. If the government can realize the reality of the many problems with the insanity defense, than the rest of American can too.
