Mingxin Zhu (Nina)

Daniel McNaughton， the suspect for the assassination of the secretary of the British Prime Minister， was the initial perpetrator to escape criminal culpability by the defense of insanity. McNaughtons belief in the Prime Ministers conspiracy against him resulted in the murdering of the secretary， whom McNaughton had mistaken for the Prime Minister. The acquittal of McNaughton “by reason of insanity” formulated the M'Naghten test： jury instruction and standard for the defense of insanity （LII Staff， 2018， The MNaghten Rule section， para. 1）. The insanity defense refers to a defense a defendant can plead in criminal trials， claiming the lack of culpability based on severe psychiatric impairments and illnesses （LII Staff， 2018， Overview section， para. 1）. The defense was initially created as an expression of moral principles （Schouten， 2012， What is the Insanity Defense？ section， para. 3）， where retributivism is conducted only when an individual is truly culpable of the act （White， 2011， para. 3）. Legal criterions， such as the MNaghten test and the federal standards， for the legally insane involve the defendants knowledge of the nature of the crime and their ability to distinguish between morality and immorality （LII Staff， 2018， The MNaghten Rule section， para. 4）. However， with the increasing occurrence of insanity defenses in court， such claims have become excessively broad arguments made by defendants as their blanket excuses to avoid legal punishments. Owing to the inaccurate characterization and perception of mental disabilities in criminal defenses， the true purpose of the insanity defense is obscured， suggesting the complete collapse of the insanity defense.

For a suspect to be convicted of a crime， the presence of two essential aspects， actus reus， and mens rea， must be proven by the prosecution. Actus reus involves the conduction of the physical guilty act， while mens rea entails the criminal intent a suspect holds towards the victim. If a suspect performed a criminal act but did not possess the criminal intent to do so， the suspect is not culpable of the act as no crime is proven to exist （Schouten， 2012， What is the Insanity Defense？ section， para. 1）. This leads to the establishment of the insanity defense as a display of moral principles accepted by society. As stated by Schouten （2012）， the defense supported and promoted the belief of how “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” （What is the Insanity Defense？ section， para. 3）， emphasizing the execution of retributivism， or proportionate punishment， as the principal purpose of the establishment of the insanity defense.

The inconsistency and uncertainty in attributes of psychiatric testimonies result in controversial and questionable court decisions. The Nixon administrations proposal of the Criminal Code Reform Act attempted to adjust the defense by establishing “a system in which the power to determine a defendant's fate—imprisonment， hospitalization， or release—is effectively in the hands of psychiatrists” （Reisner & Semme， 1974， p. 753）， advocating the significant involvement and participation of psychiatrists in criminal trials. With the essentiality of expert interpretations and psychiatric testimonies in the determination of insanity acquittees， it is crucial to eliminate influential factors that may affect psychiatric investigations and determinations. However， according to Reisner and Semme （1974）， “Diagnosis of mental condition depends to a large extent upon the psychiatrist's perception of the patient's overt behavior and nonverbal communication during interviews” （p. 773）， proposing the unreliability of diagnoses due to the variation in psychoanalysts perception of the patients behaviors and notions. As psychoanalysis is a highly subjective abstraction， a minor difference in the psychologists conceptual beliefs may result in extremely diverse diagnoses. As stated by Morales （n.d.）， “only about 60 percent of states required an expert witness in NGRI determinations be a psychiatrist or psychologist; less than 20 percent required additional certification of some sort; and only 12 percent required a test” （Problems with NGRI section， para. 1）， this demonstrates the extreme variations from state to state in examining the legally insane， implying how legal standards and requirements of the insanity defense have exceptionally high unreliability and inconsistency.

The incompetent perception of mental impairment results in the inaccurate determination of culpability and retributivism. The qualifications of the plead and the legally insane are strictly based on the MNaghten rule， limiting the variety of mental disabilities that acquittees of insanity may acquire. However， according to White （2011），  “it is not insanity per se， but only how a defendant's mental state influenced his or her actions， that impacts on responsibility” （para. 1）， proposing the impreciseness of generalizing the absence of mens rea as a product of insanity. With the extreme diversity and complexity of the mental state， involuntary criminal behaviors may result from multitudinous elements barring insanity. Although these components of mental disorders have significant impacts on an individuals ability to conduct rational judgment， they do not satisfy the legal standards of the MNaghten rule， and therefore defendants possessing such components are unable to plead for the insanity defense. Psychopathy， a personality disorder， is constantly recognized and distinguished in serial killers. As declared by Gay （2010）， “a serial killer suffering from psychopathy cannot control his or her impulses， identify with others and feel empathy， and cannot conform his or her behavior to social norms. He or she cannot possibly be completely competent and responsible for their actions” （Psyche of Serial Killers section， para. 3）， indicating the lack of conscience in psychopathic individuals， which can result in the demonstration of uncontrollable criminal activities without legitimate intentions. With the substantial variety of criminal impairments possessing detrimental impacts on the mental state of an individual， it's immensely inaccurate to determine liability purely based on the presence of legal insanity.

The erroneous application of insanity defenses in criminal trials distorts the expression of morality into a commonly used tactic to avoid legal punishments. As proposed by Miller et al （2006）， “in a study， Boehnert matched 30 men who unsuccessfully raised the defense. Through interviews and psychological testing， the authors found that 23 attempted subjects were ‘correctly classified by the court” （p. 38）. This reveals the exceptionally high occurrence of the insanity defense in criminal cases involving offenders with the ability to conduct judicious reasoning， which demonstrates the constant use of the insanity plea by legally sane culprits as a strategy to avoid warranted punishments. Inaccurate determinations of the insanity defense， including both the acquittal of culpable suspects and the failure to identify the legally insane， occur frequently in criminal court cases. In the trial of Kurt Peterson， the 25-year-old “wrestled a gun away from 72-year-old security guard Earl Ledbetter outside The Medical Center of Aurora on Oct. 14， 1999， and shot him several times” （Mitchell， 2015， para. 8）. With the plea of insanity， Peterson was acquitted by the Arapahoe County District Court under the “reason of insanity” and was directed to the Colorado Mental Health Institute with “off-grounds privileges without supervision” （Mitchell， 2015， para. 3）. However， Peterson was later proven to possess the ability to distinguish between morality and immorality， along with 26.7% of the patients in the health institute during July 1986 to February 1992 （Mitchell， 2015， para. 6）. With the exceptional growth of faulty determinations of the insanity plea， the usage of the defense as a tactic to avoid legal punishments is promoted， causing the insanity defense to drift further away from its initial position.

With the substantial amount of controversies revolving around the insanity defense， both recognition and repudiation are expressed in the society. As only one percent of all felony cases in the United States are associated with the defense of insanity （Morales， n.d.， Insanity Defense Statistics section， para. 2）， defenders of the insanity plea may object to the necessity for the attention given to the faulty aspects of the defense. The intermittent occurrence of the plea weakens the impact the defects have on the criminal justice system， therefore reducing the necessity for the urgent adjustments of the insanity defense. Although flaws of the insanity defense may not be noticeable in the general legal system， it obstructs the principal purpose of the insanity plea： the accurate acquittal of mentally disabled defendants. The argument proposed by the defenders displays a limited and deficient perception of the insanity defense， ignoring critical issues merely based on the minimal occurrence of the complication. The main concern should be focused on the impairment and modifications of the crippled defense， ameliorating the quality of the legal doctrine， not ignorantly disregarding the concrete matter.

The incompetent and inconsistent aspects of mental disabilities in criminal trials result in erroneous insanity acquittals， which opposes the initial justification for the establishment of the insanity doctrine， advocating the absolute deficiency of the insanity defense. The defective characteristics of psychiatric diagnoses， along with the limited perception of mental impairments， and the fallacious usage of the defense as an avoidance strategy， the insanity defense has become a platform for the submission of biased psychiatrist testimonies and inaccurate court decisions. Ironically， the defense became an obstruction for defendants with the presence of involuntary intent and a gateway for legally sane culprits to avoid warranted punishments.

Works Cited

[1]L， A. （2010， October 01）. Reforming the Insanity Defense： The Need for a Psychological Defect Plea. Retrieved from http：//www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/304/reforming-the-insanity-defense-the-need-for-a-psychological-defect-plea

[2]LII Staff. （2018， December 04）. Insanity defense. Retrieved from https：//www.law.cornell.edu/wex/insanity_defense

[3]Meyer， J. （2014， September 12）. Retributive justice. Retrieved from https：//www.britannica.com/topic/retributive-justice

[4]Miller， R.， Olin， J.， Ball， E.， Bennett， C.， Beven， G.， & Pitt， S. （2006）. The Validity of Colorado Not Criminally Responsible Findings. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law， 34（1）， 37-49.

[5]Mitchell， K. （2015， April 04）. It's rare， but some defendants fake mental illness to avoid prison. Retrieved from https：//www.denverpost.com/2015/04/04/its-rare-but-some-defendants-fake-mental-illness-to-avoid-prison/

[6]Morales， J. （n.d.）. Insanity Defense - Insanity defense statistics， Problems with NGRI， Guilty but mentally ill. Retrieved from http：//psychology.jrank.org/pages/336/Insanity-Defense.html

[7]Psychopathy. （n.d.）. Retrieved from http：//www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/psychopathy

[8]Reisner， R.， & Semmel， H. （n.d.）. Abolishing the Insanity Defense： A Look at the Proposed Federal Criminal Code Reform Act in Light of the Swedish Experience. Retrieved from https：//scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol62/iss3/3/

[9]Schouten， R.， M.D.， J.D. （2012， August 16）. The Insanity Defense. Retrieved from https：//www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/almost-psychopath/201208/the-insanity-defense

[10]The Criminal Defense of Insanity. （n.d.）. Retrieved from http：//www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/insanity/.

[11]White， M. D. （2011， January 21）. Debating the Insanity Defense. Retrieved from https：//www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/maybe-its-just-me/201101/debating-the-insanity-defense