Abolish the Insanity Defense?

1. Abolish the Insanity Defense? Michael James Texas Tech University

2. Introduction • Thesis: While the current state of the insanity defense receives a lot of backing from legal professionals and scholars alike, there is a growing support for revision of the current statute to account for discrepancies that have been observed in criminal trials. Research over the last ten years has found this debate lies within which statute best suits the interests of the defendants and community as a whole, rather than the moral argument of abolishing the defense completely.

3. The M’Naghten Rules ‘The M’Naghten Rules’ became the golden standard for assessing criminal liability in common law countries. This case solidified that “the judicial system requires two elements to hold a person accountable for a criminal offence: the criminal act as such (actusreus) and intent (mens rea-guilty mind)” (Meyen 93). An opponent of The M’Naghten Rules is Brian Shannon, a professor at Texas Tech School of Law, who contends that the high profile Andrea Yates case “should serve as a catalyst for a reexamination of the continued reliance solely on a narrow M'Naghtenstandard” (Shannon 83). The M’Naghten Rules seem to be the ‘golden standard’ for evaluating mental health of defendants on trial. With this subtopic I hope to give the readers a historical perspective on the issue.

4. Mens Rea Model Stephen Morse gives a more detailed explanation concurring with LeBlanc, and presents a more absolute definition. He states “to determine if mental disorder negates mens rea, one must simply ask, using straightforward common sense to provide an answer, if the defendant's disordered mental state actually indicates that mens rea was not formed on the occasion” (Morse 1087). While LeBlanc is in support of the mens rea model, an obvious opponent is Jean Philips, a University of Kansas Law professor. She states, “By replacing the extrinsic defense of insanity with an evidentiary rule intrinsic to offense elements, the Mens Rea Model unconstitutionally abolishes an essential category of mens rea which is concerned with legal capacity as a precondition for criminal responsibility” (Phillips 461). This differs from LeBlanc’s views at the foundation, and shows a disagreement at the very core of the argument. Many proponents of the insanity defense feel the Mens Rea Model is unconstitutional in the sense that it violates criminally insane defendant’s eighth amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. The Mens Rea model is perhaps the most backed alternative to the current insanity defense statute.

5. Constitution and 8th Amendment He states that “historical practice, the near universal acceptance of the need for an independent affirmative defense of legal insanity, and the fundamental unfairness of blaming and punishing legally insane offenders provide the strongest reasons to conclude that fundamental fairness and the Due Process Clause require an insanity defense” (Morse 490). While Morse asserts that it is imperative the insanity defense is permitted by the constitution, LeBlanc allows room for judgment and interpretation, stating that “individual characteristics and personal culpability of the offender are critical in determining whether a punishment comports with the Eighth Amendment” (LeBlanc 1297). In this subtopic, numerous authors state that an abolishment/mens rea model insanity defense would be unconstitutional and unjust to defendants pleading NGRI.

6. Conclusion The insanity defense remains is among one of the most intriguing topics in the worlds of both psychology and law alike. While most all insanity defense cases are tragic, they do provide material from which to study and learn from in order to make the best informed decisions for the future. There remains much support for the current state of the statute, however, there are definitely tides swirling around the idea of a revision or expansion to the current laws. The idea that the criminally insane are not responsible for the horrible acts that they commit most certainly ruffle feathers, which provides for the controversial debate that has been present for decades. The high profile cases of Andrea Yates and John Hinckley Jr. allowed the American public to draw their own inferences about the insanity defense right from their living rooms, and perhaps educating them to a certain extent also. It is important to remember that the research over the last ten years has found this debate lies within which statute best suits the interests of the defendants and community as a whole, rather than the moral argument of abolishing the defense completely. With the origin stemming from Daniel M’Naghten, the Mens Rea Model, and the views of the Constitution, many have opinions over this controversial debate. It is these opinions that will continue to drive the debate and further research.