NCJ Number
83068
Journal
Prosecutor Volume: 16 Issue: 3 Dated: (Spring 1982) Pages: 6-13
Date Published
1982
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This article discusses the insanity defense in terms of historical development and recent application; compelling reasons for the abolition of the plea are emphasized through analysis of two contemporary criminal cases.
Abstract
Not guilty by reason of insanity is a special verdict of acquittal in a criminal trial. The verdict grants that although the accused committed the act in question, he cannot be held legally responsible because he was not sane at the time of the crime. Since the insanity defense originated almost 200 years ago, definitions used to describe insanity have broadened, giving criminals greater chances of escaping the legal consequences of their actions. As a result, many law enforcement officials and attorneys have proposed abolition of the insanity defense as it is now interpreted by the courts. It has been suggested that psychiatry has undermined the criminal justice system by justifying criminality. Psychiatrist Dr. Lee Coleman of Berkeley states that psychiatric testimony is scientifically worthless and irrelevant, and it serves only to confuse the jury. This argument has gained increasing credibility in view of the trials of John W. Hinckley (tried for shooting President Reagan) and Dan White (tried for the murders of San Francisco city officials Harvey Milk and George Moscone). In both cases the defense used the diminished capacity argument which is recognized by the American Law Institute's definition of insanity as an allowable defense. Although White carefully planned the murders, demonstrating what most would term premeditation and malice, psychiatric testimony convinced the jury that White could not be held responsible for his actions. He will be eligible for parole in 3 years. The article suggests that the insanity defense per se should be entirely abolished. Psychiatrists should not be permitted to testify on criminal intent, and they should not be considered experts on the subject of the human mind. Finally, questions of right and wrong can be reasoned when common sense is used as a basis and American laws should reflect this truth. The article includes seven photographs.