Innocent for reasons of insanity?

Question

Don't you think this is a faulty concept? I would go so far as to say that it is unconstitutional to declare innocence for reason of insanity.

The job of the judicial system in the U.S. is to weigh the evidence to determine if an individual has or has not violated the laws set forth. Am I wrong?

Why then can a court declare someone innocent of a crime because of the reasoning behind it; even when the criminal has admitted violating the law and that the accusations against them are true?

Are we to say that conditions of insanity makes it ok to break the law?

And are we to say that because a person violated the law because he/she was mentally defective that they are less of a threat to society than the criminal who isn't insane?

Give me some supporting arguements for both sides of this.

Answer 1

Whew, third time posting this in a week. Here is the explanation you purport to seek:

First, MOST crimes consist of 2 critical parts. First is "actus reas" or the guilty act. This is what most of us think of when we think about crime, that a wrongful act occurred. The SECOND part of a crime, however, is what the NGRI verdict is relevant to. That second part is "mens rea" or guilty mind. This does NOT mean that the offender feels guilty about what he/she did. It means that the actor had to have the requisite mental state in order for the crime to have been committed. The definitions of requisite mental state will vary by jurisdiction, but it does NOT equate with the standard idea of "crazy" as you use it in characterizing these people. It has more to do with knowing the difference between right and wrong and/or being able to control one's actions even if knowledgeable about right/wrong. Now, here is the important part to understand why the verdict is "not guilty by reason of insanity." If BOTH actus reus and mens rea are not present, THEN A CRIME DID NOT OCCUR. This does not mean the ACT did not occur, rather that the CRIME (which requires BOTH aspects) did not occur. This is why the verdict is "not guilty."

As for the ultimate outcome, however, you are mistaken that these people "get off." What happens in actuality is that someone found NGRI is incarcerated in a secure mental health facility until such time as they can show they are no longer a threat to society. In point of fact, many of these people end up serving longer time in the mental facility than they would have had they been found guilty of the crime they are accused of!

Some jurisidictions have recognized the psychological dissatisfaction that the general public has with the NGRI verdict and have changed their verdicts to "guilty, but mentally ill." Interestingly, while public satisfaction with the verdict has risen, the outcome that the defendant goes through is no different than had they been found NGRI, with the exception that they now have a conviction on their record. If you care more about outcome than the label, it doesn't matter what they call it.

BTW, the insanity defense is used extremely rarely and is "successful" even less often. Conservative estimates put its use at about 1-3% of all criminal trials and its success at about 1% of those. The reason we THINK it is used a lot and successful is that whenever it is used and successful it is usually for some horrific crime and it makes all the news. So it is easy for us to recall the incident. This is called the availability heuristic -- we overestimate the occurrence of something based on how "available" an occurrence of it happening is in our memory. If you don't believe me, research it yourself.

Answer 2

Honetly I think the only problem people have with prosecuting the "insane" is that there is a chance the defendant had no ligitimate understanding of the consequenses of the actions they were commiting. And to me - these people that go their whole lives with never having "mental problems" i.e. people not born with an evident disorder, shouldn't be considered mentally unable to understand their actions. They were able to live to 30 or 40 years, and never knew the difference from right and wrong?? Hmm... Of course there are people out there that develop pyschosis over a period of years due to "lack of proper parenting"( yeah right ), violent or gruesome exposures to certain aspects of the human nature, etc. etc. and develop those character traits, which some claim is the inhibitor for why they commit these crimes. But if that was the case, how would they be innocent? If a mentally handicapped human being shot someone in the head walking down the street one day, would the victim's family have any more remorse for the killer because he was mentally handicapped? Doubtful...while yes it is quite possible, even probable that a mentally handicapped individual would not understand the consequences of some of their actions, they still must have an understanding of right and wrong. If a person commits a crime, it is witnessed, and verified by others, how can someone claim to be innocent? Yeah there might be the random twin on the rampage out there in the world, but to me it's a waste of time and money for someone to plead innocent to a crime that's been substantiated by police or FBI to have been committed by the criminal, regardless of insanity or sanity. If you've committed a crime - you are guilty.

Answer 3

With respect to the whole idea of someone being able to be considered "innocent by reason of insanity".. I think that is one of the most stupid things in the judicial system. While I do understand the fact that there are people that do have mental issues, etc.. What I don't find at all proper is finding them "innocent" because of it. They are still guilty of the crime no matter what the reason. What I have often thought is that the system should have a choice of "guilty, but because insane...".. then they would still be found guilty, but because they have an 'insanity' defense, then maybe they could be put in a specialized prison system... Committed to a mental hospital, etc.. Also, your comment that everyone that does commit the crimes.. especially the big ones.. obviously isn't "sane" anyway. But I do know that they have different levels of what they consider sane/insane. My biggest concern with finding someone "innocent by reason of insanity".. is that they don't then have to pay for their crime.. which regardless of being sane or insane.. they did! And, if they're "insane" then they're obviously a danger to society, aren't they? I think that is a law that absolutely needs to be stricken from the books and should not be allowed to be used as a defense. It can be used for reasons of sentencing and where the person goes, etc.. but in no way should they be considered INNOCENT...

Answer 4

You are confusing the standards of the law. The law does not say that someone is guilty but committed the offense but rather says that someone was incapable of forming the requisite intent to commit the crime due to a mental disease or defect. The element of intent may be negated by the person's psychological state. We have passed more and more laws which do not require a mens rea (mental state) element in order to eliminate the ability of a person to escape punishment by proving insanity.

An example of a crime that involves intent is murder. Murder is generally defined as the intentional taking of another human life. In order to prove that, the state must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. Among those elements is that the crime was intentional. If you were to remove that element, you would be left with murder as the taking of another human life. Thus, if you were involved in a car accident you could be charged with murder.

Despite what you may think, there are not thousands of cases around the country where people commit murder and are set free. The few cases that are sensationalized lead people to believe that this is some rampant problem. The greater problem lies in catching and convicting those who do commit serious crimes. Even more so, in preventing crime from happening in the first place. It is easy to point the finger and propose simple solutions to complex problems but each change in the law brings with it new and more complex problems.

Answer 5

In the system of law that the US inherited from England, a crime requires two elements: mens rea and actus reus. A guilty mind and a guilty act. A person who is legally insane--incapable of recognizing what he is doing--lacks a guilty mind. Now there are other systems, systems that derive from Ancient Rome, that do not have quite the same system, but even the most bloodthirsty nations don't execute the insane.

Of course, as America goose-steps to the right, it's fair to speculate that soon we will be poisoning the insane, children, and other useless dregs. This would not be so upsetting if the criminal justice system were reliable. But it's not, it's a travesty, and I continue to wonder how any Christian can look on the image of Jesus' agony on the cross and still advocate for capital punishment.

Maybe someone can explain this to me.

Answer 6

I think it is a perfectly reasonable concept. First if someone is found not guilty due to insanity they are usually committed because of their illness by the courts, they are not just let to go out on the streets.

Answer 7

The requisite mental state is not present when someone is truly insane.

Answer 8

I totally agree!! You can't just get off by saying you're crazy. That's unfair and if we really lived up to that then we'll probably have alot more criminals running free because they're "crazy". Good question by the way :-)

Answer 9

Aren't they remanded to the mental facilities when they are found to be insane?

Answer 10

It's absolute nonsense.. Of course you have to be mentally unstable to commit crime. Common sense tells us that it is reasonable to obey laws that are put in place to protect us. Mental deviation occurs when we back away from sense. It should never be a legal defense...