There are times when the
insanity defense, with all the controversy that surrounds it, is in
the news. This is one of those times:
It is highly likely that
James Holmes, who is facing 142 felony counts in connection with
the Aurora, Colorado shootings on July 22, 2012, will raise an
insanity defense. First, he’ll have to be found competent to stand
trial, which is a separate issue.
What is the Insanity
Defense?
- For a person to be
convicted of a crime, the prosecution must prove not only that the
person engaged in a guilty act (actus reus), but also that he or
she had guilty intent (mens rea). If a person does not have
criminal intent during an act, no crime occurs: a person who takes
someone else’s property, honestly believing it is his own, is not
guilty of larceny.
- But what about situations
in which the person commits the act, and intended to do so, but was
suffering from a mental or physical condition that impairs their
ability to appreciate that they are doing something wrong or to
control their behavior? That’s where the insanity defense comes
in.
- While the insanity defense
is a legal doctrine, at its heart it is the expression of a moral
principle found in societies across time and multiple cultures:
individuals should not be punished for their otherwise criminal
acts if they lack certain characteristics that relate to the
ability to engage in rational thinking, including an appreciation
of the wrongfulness and consequences of their actions, or control
their behavior.
- Take, for example,
children. A five year old who sets fire to the drapes because the
flames are pretty, will not be charged with arson when the house
burns down. The same is true for people with severe developmental
disabilities. What about people who cause harm to others or commit
crimes while sleepwalking? Yes, those cases exist, and the
defendants are generally not held criminally
responsible.
- The legal requirements for
the insanity defense have varied over the centuries and societies
in which it has existed. Here in the United States, public outrage
in response to successful insanity defenses in high profile cases
has often led to changes that limit the availability of the defense
and its likelihood of success.
- For example, in the early
1980’s, the standard for the insanity defense in federal criminal
cases was the American Law Institute/Model Penal Code standard. It
provides for acquittal on the basis of insanity if as the result of
a mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked substantial
capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions or lacked
substantial capacity to conform his behavior to the requirements of
the law. This was considered to be more lenient than the standard
that had been used until then.
- But, after John Hinckley
was found not guilty by reason of insanity for his failed
assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, the federal
standard was changed to a stricter version that limits the defense
to those with severe mental illness and those who are unable to
appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct.
- Thus, the new federal
standard eliminated the volitional component and left only the
cognitive component. Many states have followed suit and
some have eliminated the
insanity defense altogether.
- Regardless of the precise
legal standard, the insanity defense is rarely raised and even more
rarely successful. It is used in only about 1% of cases in the
U.S., and is successful less than 25% of the time.
- What Qualifies as a “Mental
Disease or Defect” for the Insanity Defense?
- While any mental or medical
condition could theoretically serve as a basis for an insanity
defense, the law limits the conditions that can be considered for
that purpose. These restrictions are aimed at insuring that only
those who truly deserve to be relieved of responsibility are
eligible for it. To that end, voluntary intoxication is excluded,
as are conditions that have antisocial behaviors as their primary
characteristic, e.g. kleptomania, pyromania, and pedophilia and
appear to have no physiological basis. Some legal standards require
that the mental illness serving as the basis for the defense be
“severe.”
- Not every condition that
qualifies to be the basis for an insanity defense has an equal
chance of succeeding in achieving an acquittal. Those that succeed
tend to be marked by either severity or evidence that they arise
from a physiological, as opposed to a purely psychological,
disorder. These are, for example, mental illnesses that severely
affect a person’s perception of reality or, in some jurisdictions,
ability to control their behavior. They include psychoses, severe
depression, mania, or anxiety disorders like posttraumatic stress
disorder (PTSD). An argument that an act of violence was the result
of a traumaticbrain injury causing irritability and poor impulse
control is more likely to be convincing than the assertion that the
violence arose from personality disturbance.
How Will Advances in
Neuroscience and Genetics Affect the Insanity Defense?
- The presence of abnormal
brain function due to injury, tumor, and epilepsy has been
successfully offered as the basis for an insanity defense in number
criminal cases hundreds of years.
- When it has been
successful, the apparent key to the success of these defenses lies
in the concrete and observable nature of the abnormality: juries
can see the tumor on a brain scan, and may be presented with
evidence that the criminal behavior did not occur before the injury
or that it stops after treatment.