Every trial involving an insanity plea is basically a trial of morality. It is a trial of who should, and who should not, be held accountable. First of all, the act must be voluntary and conscious. Examples of involuntary acts include:
The story with this picture is that her partner accidently broke her nose during a dance. This would be a voluntary act. 2. If you commit a crime while sleepwalking that is an involuntary act. 3. Interestingly enough, if someone throws a hand grenade in the room, you pick it up and throw it outside, and it kills someone, that is also an involuntary act. Mens rea means understanding of the crime. Some states, Kansas for example have a mens rea condition, but no insanity defense. A person could still be held accountable, but due to diminished capacity, may lack a complete understanding of the crime. Subsequently, would be guilty but could have a lesser sentence. Example: A mild intellectually disabled person who knew it was wrong but agreed to do it anyway. Pic of infant wild beast. The first case involving the insanity plea occurred in 1724 in England, with a man referred to as “Mad” Ned Arnold. He believed that Lord Onslow was at times occupying his body. Ned shot and wounded Lord Onslow. The criteria for insanity were the person had no better understanding than an infant, a brut (an example would be a domesticated animal like an ox), or a wild beast (tiger). Ned had persecutory delusions and he shot an injured Onslow to keep him from inhabiting his body. The infant, brut, or wild beast criteria, stood for 75 years until 1800. Pic of infant brut In 1800, a man named Hadfield had the delusion that he had to die o save the world. He requested the state execute him. They had no cause, so he shot at King George III. He purposely shot over the head of the king knowing this offense was a death penalty offense. Hadfield was a veteran who had a hole in his skull from a sword as a result of a battle. (His attorney walked him in front of the jury and had each jury member feel the hole so they would be aware that he was not making up the story.) His attorney argued that a new criterion needed to be added into the insanity plea. That criteria was “an off spring of a delusion.” An act that was “an off spring of a delusion” could be determined insane. Hatfield was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Britton past the Criminal Lunatics Act of 1800, which allowed for delusion to be an insanity plea, but taking the plea resulted in a mental health institution. Hadfield was sent to Bethlehem Hospital, which is frequently referred to as Bedlam. Queen Victoria had 7 attempts on her life (being a monarch is clearly a high-risk occupation). In 1840, one of the offenders used the argument that it was an irresistible impulse. The jury ruled that if the behavior was the result of a disease creating a power within him that he could not resist, he was not responsible. (This justification would later be dismissed as a defense for good reason. Jeffery Dahmer could argue that killing was the result of an irresistible urge.) Queen Victoria (While queen she married Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. It was the 1st marriage of a reigning queen in 300 years.) Daniel M’Naghten In 1843 Daniel M’Naghten had paranoid delusions that the Torres political party was trying to kill him. Daniel M’Naghten thought he shot Prime Minister Robert Peel who was the head of the Torres party. Peel had borrowed his carriage to Lord John Drummond. M’Naghten had killed Drummond. Seven psychiatrists (out of 7) testified that Daniel M’Naghten had paranoid delusions. The judge asked the jury if they needed to hear anymore, they said they did not. They didn’t even go back to the jury room. Instead, they huddled and found him not guilty by reason of insanity. M’Naghten was placed in Bedlam Hospital. Progress notes were required to be completed once a year. People were upset with M’Naghten ruling due to multiple assassination attempts on royalty and prime ministers between 1840 and 1843. The M’Naghten case is significant because it was the first appellate case, which means it was the first case that was reevaluated by a group of judges. The ruling was that he was not of a stable mind to know the quality of his act. M’Naghten clarified the rule to have knowledge of the wrongfulness of a specific act. England uses legal wrongfulness while Canada uses moral wrongfulness. In the United States, 8 states use legal wrongfulness, and 6 states use moral wrongfulness. Most of the states don’t specify whether they are referring to legal or moral wrongfulness. Instead, they leave it to the collective consciousness, of the jury, to determine wrongfulness. In 1886, Alabama was the first state to implement the “Irresistible Impulse Rule.” Was the perpetrator unable, due to a mental disease, to adhere to the right behavior? This led to the policeman at your elbow question: “If there were a policeman at your elbow at the time of the offense, would you have followed through?” The question is in reference to controlling your behavior. The problem with this question is that if a man decided to kill his wife, and then kill himself, he would be unconcerned if a police officer was in the room. On March 30, 1981, John Hinkley shot Ronald Regan. There was outrage that Hinkley was found not guilty by reason of insanity. People became concerned about malingering. Malingering is faking illness. People do not want individuals to get by with murder. The Insanity Defense Reform Act was passed in 1984, and this is the rule used in Federal trial. Does a person, as a result of a severe mental defect, have an inability to appreciate the wrongfulness of their acts. There is no more reference to volition or “the ability to refrain.” Research shows that removing volition had no impact on reducing the number of successful insanity plea cases. However, the addition of the word “severe” has reduced the number of insanity defense wins. As a result of the publics’ frustration over John Hinkley’s plea, the defense needs to prove insanity by clearly and convincing evidence, making it more difficult. This has reduced the number of effective insanity defense pleas. On March 23, 2020, (Kahler vs. Kansas) the Supreme Court reviewed whether it is constitutional for a state to not have an insanity defense. The case was based on a situation in Kansas where a man shot his estranged wife, daughters, and mother-in-law at a Thanksgiving meal he wasn’t invited to. The Supreme Court ruled that states are not required to have an insanity plea defense. Kansas has a mens rea approach (an understanding of wrongdoing), and the Supreme Court felt this was sufficient to meet constitutional guidelines. This ruling allows any state to get rid of the insanity plea if they choose. The original case: In 1995, the Kansas legislature adopted what is referred to as the “mens rea approach” and abolished the insanity defense. This approach allows a defendant to be acquitted who lacks the requisite mental state for the crime, without consideration of the defendant's understanding of wrongfulness. Crime due to compulsion, such as Jeffrey Dahmer’s compulsion to kill people, does not meet the criteria for insanity. Crime due to a personality disorder, such as antisocial personality disorder, does not meet the criteria for the insanity plea. Basically, they are looking at the question, “Is the motive for the act psychotic?” Another last thought: It is possible for dissociation to flow from an act, rather than be the cause of it. For example, if someone finds out that their partner is cheating, and in an act of rage, they kill their spouse. They can still be so overwhelmed with the act that they could be standing at the scene, holding the gun when the police arrive, saying, “I don’t remember.” In other words, illness can flow from an act as well as be the cause of it. If the psychotic episode is the result of flow from the act, the person is sane as they were sane when the act was committed. A crime out of jealousy is a sane act. The patron saint of therapists was a young woman who lost her life fighting sexual abuse. St. Dymphna, the patron saint of therapists Dymphna was born to a pagan king and a Christian mother in Ireland. Her mother died when she was 14, and her father was driven mad with grief. He vowed that he would only marry a woman as beautiful as his first wife. When none could be found, he decided to marry his daughter. When she heard of his plan, Dymphna fled Ireland with a priest, two servants and the king’s jester. (I do like that she took a comedian along.) The group hid in the town of Geel (in what is now Belgium), but Dymphna’s father found them and captured them. He ordered the priest beheaded and tried to persuade Dymphna to return to Ireland to marry him. When she refused, he drew his sword and beheaded her. She was just 15. Dymphna received the crown of martyrdom around the year 620 and became known as the "Lily of Éire. In 1349, a church honoring St. Dymphna was built in Geel, and by 1480, so many pilgrims were arriving in need of treatment for mental ills, that the church was expanded. The expanded sanctuary was eventually overflowing again, leaving the townspeople to accept them into their homes, which began a tradition of care for the mentally ill that continues to this day. To summarize, this work has been going on for a long time, and I’m proud to work with so many people who stand between offenders and dire consequences for victims. We are making the world better. Thanks for listening, Frank April Events listed below:
0 Comments
|
AuthorFrank F. Weber is a forensic psychologist specializing in homicide and sexual and physical assault cases. He uses his unique understanding of how predator’s think, knowledge of victim trauma, actual court cases, and passion for writing true crime thrillers. His Award Winning books include "Murder Book" (2017) "The I-94 Murders" (2018) "Last Call" (2019) and "Lying Close" (September 2020). Archives
April 2024
Categories |