The Legal System - Insanity Defense Overview

M'Naghten case establishes the first modern insanity defense.

Appellate court decision in Parsons v Alabama.

Supreme Court decision in Durham v United States.

American Law Institute develops new insanity rule as part of Model Penal Code.

Supreme Court decision in Drope v Missouri.

Montana abolishes the insanity defense.

John Hinckley not guilty by reason of insanity in attempted assassination of President Reagan.

Congress passes and President Reagan signs Insanity Defense Reform Act.

Supreme Court decisions in Cowan v Montana & Shannon v United States.

The insanity defense is based on the centuries-old principle that a person ought not to be punished for wrongdoing unless criminal intent can be established. A person using the defense seeks to be acquitted of a crime by reason of insanity. In the past, it seems, judges knew a "lunatic" when they saw one, and when a person was acquitted of a crime by reason of insanity, he might expect to spend years or a lifetime locked up in an institution for the criminally insane. Today, advances in psychiatric treatment and concern for the rights of the mentally ill have changed the way the legal system deals with insanity ("insane" is a legal term, not a medical diagnosis). In this panel we look at some landmark court decisions regarding the use of the insanity defense. The next panel looks at popular perceptions of this defense.

Court Cases Establish Precedents: The modern insanity defense, incorporating the concepts of "knowing right from wrong" and "temporary insanity" was inscribed in Western law books in 1843 when a British court found Daniel M'Naghten (a k a McNaughtan) not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) of trying to assassinate the prime minister. The defense became so popular in America that Mark Twain complained: "This country, during the last thirty or forty years, has produced some of the most remarkable cases of insanity of which there is any mention in history.… Is not this insanity plea becoming rather common?"

The M'Naghten Rule was the standard used in American courtrooms until 1962, but not everyone was happy with it. Long before 1962, some complained that the rule excused only the most profoundly mentally ill from criminal conduct. Shouldn't there be some consideration for the person who couldn't stop himself, even though he knew an act was wrong? In 1886 there appeared the first of a series of court decisions establishing new criteria for the insanity defense — Parsons v Alabama; it added the concept of "irresistible impulse."¹¹ In 1962 the American Law Institute (A.L.I.) proposed a new standard; at least half of the states use the standard now.¹² Among other things, the A.L.I. test recognized that there are varying degrees of incapacity.

Meanwhile, the field of psychiatry emerged with new theories, definitions, and treatments for the mentally ill. In 1954 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Durham v United States that a person could not be held criminally responsible if his act was the "product of a mental disease or defect." This decision eliminated any consideration of right and wrong from the insanity defense and is credited with bringing legions of psychiatrists into courtrooms to expound on the meaning of "product" and "mental disease" and "defect" and so on.

Public Perceptions: As the legal establishment struggled to clarify the appropriate use and interpretation of the insanity defense, the public seemed to think that the defense was being used too often and frivolously. Members of the psychiatric profession came to be seen as too willing to tailor their testimony to favor the side that paid them. In one particularly noteworthy case, former San Francisco policeman Dan White was tried in 1979 for the murders of Mayor Harvey Milk and an aide (to which he confessed). Medical experts testified that White was depressed when he committed the crimes, and his uncharacteristic consumption of junk food was offered as evidence of his depression. The press gleefully coined the term "Twinkie Defense." White was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and served five years in prison. Many believed that White got away with murder, and the Twinkie Defense is now part of urban legend.

In the year of the Twinkie Defense, Montana became the first state to abolish the insanity defense, a decision the U.S. Supreme Court allowed to stand in 1994 when it declined to review Montana v Cowan. Soon after, Utah, Idaho, and Kansas abolished the insanity plea,¹³ a position that is supported by the American Medical Association. According to some analysts, what actually happens in places where the insanity defense is abolished is that an obviously insane defendant is ruled incompetent to stand trial and is immediately committed to an institution, bypassing any question of a defense.

Another landmark in the history of the insanity defense, and one that led to widespread tinkering with policies, procedures, and standards, came on the heels of John Hinckley's 1981 assassination attempt on President Reagan. The court acquitted Hinckley, finding him "not guilty by reason of insanity." Even though Hinckley did not go free (he remains hospitalized), there was a heated public outcry, reflecting a pervasive fear that violent criminals acquitted by reason of insanity walk freely among us. Reform of the system was again called for. In 1984 Congress passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act, which created a special verdict of "not guilty only by reason of insanity." In federal courts, the burden was now on the defendant to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that "as a result of a severe mental disease or defect" the defendant did not know right from wrong.

In state courts, approaches to reforming the system involved placing a heavier burden of proof on the defendant, making changes in commitment and release procedures, and/or adopting other sentencing options. Arizona and Oregon offer the option "guilty except insane." In 1975 Michigan was the first state to enact a "guilty but mentally ill" verdict after two insanity acquittees raped two women and murdered another after their release from inpatient hospitalization. About 14 states now permit this verdict; it usually requires that the defendant be hospitalized and serve a reasonable prison sentence if discharged.

More Landmark Court Cases: In 1975 the Supreme Court ruled on the issue of competence to stand trial in Drope v Missouri. Charged with raping his wife, Drope tried to commit suicide. His absence during trial was termed "voluntary" by the court, the trial proceeded without him, and he was found guilty. Drope appealed, claiming he had been deprived of due process of law by the trial court's failure to order a psychiatric examination with respect to his competence to stand trial. The Supreme Court ruled that his irrational behavior, demeanor at trial, and prior medical opinion should have been taken into account in determining his competence to stand trial.

In 1994 the Supreme Court ruled in Shannon v United States that a federal district court is not required to instruct the jury regarding the consequences to the defendant of an NGRI verdict. Shannon had requested that the jury be advised that he would face involuntary commitment if he were found NGRI.

And so the refinements and the controversy continue. According to JAMA, there are at least 100,000 insane people in this county. ¹⁴ If they take to lives of crime, will they get away with murder? Our next panel looks at public perceptions of the insanity defense.

Sources: Twain, Mark, "A New Crime," in Sketches, New and Old (Hartford, Conn.: American Publishing Company, 1875), Jim Zwick, ed., http://www.boondocksnet.com/twaintexts/new_crime.html. Flanagan, Newman, "Not Guilty Does Not Mean Innocent." http://www.massbar.org/article.php. Paul H. Robinson, An Introduction to the Model Penal Code, http://www.law.nwu.edu/faculty/fulltime/robinson/articles/intromodpencode.pdf. American Psychiatric Association, "The Insanity Defense Position Statement," Approved October 1982, http://www.psych.org/archives/820002.pdf. "Heredity as a social burden," JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association, August 14, 1996 v276 n6 p444B(1).