Abolishing the Insanity Defense Statute is Unjust MICHAEL

Abolishing the Insanity Defense Statute is Unjust MICHAEL JAMES TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY

Introduction “If an infant were to spill its milk, would you punish it? The overwhelming answer is no, because the infant does not know right from wrong, and therefore should not be punished. The same principle applies to the law when punishing the mentally insane in criminal courts of law. The insanity defense has been a long debated topic in the fields of psychology and law alike, and the current debate continues to thrive on the national level, regarding the amendment or abolishment of the current statute. Both sides of the debate are backed by academic sources, and each contend their insanity defense model or abolition is the most beneficial to society. Many people, especially here in Texas, have been aware of at least one insanity defense defendant, namely Andrea Yates who killed five of her children in 2001. This case has only added fuel to the debate, as many view her trial as an injustice to the mentally insane. The abolishment of the current insanity defense statute would violate due process in addition to the mentally ill defendant’s 8 th amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore any abolishment would be unjust. Moreover, outright injustices to mentally ill defendants has been observed in recent years, only solidifying the need for an insanity defense statute in every state. ”

Thesis “The abolishment of the current insanity defense statute would violate due process in addition to the mentally ill defendant’s 8 th amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore any abolishment would be unjust. Moreover, outright injustices to mentally ill defendants has been observed in recent years, only solidifying the need for an insanity defense statute in every state. ”

Abolition Violates Due Process “The abolishment of the insanity defense would violate the Due Process Clause, which would be unjust according to the Constitution. Stephen Morse depicts a moral necessity for the defense by stating “Blame and punishment by the state are fundamentally unfair and thus a violation of the Due Process Clause if an offender was not responsible for his crime” (Morse 490). Jennifer Bard, a professor at Texas Tech University School of Law, concurs with Morse. She actually cites him in her article stating “an actor who lacks such competence is not responsible, does not deserve punishment, and cannot justly be punished" (Bard 4). Simply, a court cannot justly convict a defendant if they did not know the act was wrongful. The abolishment of the current statute would make it significantly more difficult to gain an acquittal by negating mens rea, which I contend would violate Due Process. Morse points to this violation once more stating “such offenders cannot be appropriately deterred because the rules of law and morality cannot adequately guide them. Failing to excuse some mentally disordered offenders is inconsistent with both retributive and deterrent theories of just punishment” (Morse 492). With this statement Morse supports my contention that the mentally ill are not responsible for their actions under law, and points to inconsistencies present in the criminal justice system. Controversy is ever present with this topic, which is clearly visible on the national level regarding violation of the 8 th amendment for mentally ill defendants. ”

th Abolition Violates 8 Amendment Rights The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and fellow proponents of the current insanity defense statute contend that this law must be present in the United States. Not only has the current statute been in use in the U. S. for over 200 years, but dating back centuries in foreign countries. Morse highlights its history and necessity of the statute in the past by stating “the insanity defense has been a feature of ancient law and of English law since the 14 th century, and it was universal in the United States until the last decades of the 20 th century” (Morse 494). This fact sheds light on how the concept of an insanity defense has been applied for hundreds of years in other common law sovereignties, and therefore should not be abolished presently, especially with our current knowledge of mental disorders. The abolishment of the current statute would also have larger implications, such as violating a mentally ill defendant’s 8 th amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. Randy Borum and Solomon M. Fulero provide support by stating “it has also been alleged that abolishing insanity defense statutes violate Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment by not providing appropriate treatment to people with this special designation of mental illness” (Borum & Fulero 385). This was the case for perhaps the most recognizable insanity defense defendant in recent memory, especially in Texas, Andrea Pia Yates. This case would take the debate to an unprecedented level, as an injustice against Yates highlights the need for the statute.

Abolition is an Injustice to the Mentally Ill On the morning of June 20, 2001, Andrea Yates performed a heinous act punishable by death by murdering her five children. However, eventually Yates was found not guilty of committing a crime, a perfect application of the current insanity defense statute. If only that’s the way the trial went the first time around. Originally, Yates was convicted of all five murders, a clear injustice against a mentally ill defendant. Brian Shannon, a professor at Texas Tech School of Law, contends that the high profile Yates case “should serve as a catalyst for a reexamination of the continued reliance solely on a narrow M'Naghten standard” (Shannon 83). The word catalyst could not be more accurate in describing how this case effected the debate, seemingly in favor of the mentally ill defendants. Bard highlights this injustice by stating “the decision by a Texas jury to find Andrea Pia Yates, rather than not guilty by reason of insanity, has unleashed a torrent of calls to revise the insanity defense to avoid further such perceived injustices” (Bard 5). These revisions include educating juries on the insanity defense as well as the admission of a broader range of psychiatric files into evidence, both of which are imperative to retaining defendant rights. As with many insanity defense trials, there are endless emotions present in the courtroom. However, it is important not to let emotions influence legal decisions that affect one’s life greatly. Phillip Resnick supports this statement with his own, “one factor that influences juries in deciding whether to find a defendant NGRI (not guilty by reason of insanity) is whether they can emotionally forgive the defendant. For this reason, prosecutors often seek to admit emotionally upsetting evidence to make the crime ‘unforgivable’” (Resnick 153). Resnick is referencing the Yates trial, and the prosecutions admittance of photos of the deceased children into evidence, despite the defense attorneys conceding the wrongful act occurred. This, along with botched testimony for the prosecution culminated into an injustice for Yates. The criminal justice system and mental health professionals must continue to benefit from the current insanity defense statute to prevent any further injustices from occurring. Despite this opinion, proponents for abolition still state their cases as to why the current statute should be abolished, and a new model should be implemented.

Counterargument “The most liable contingency to the current insanity defense statute, and what most abolitionists favor, is the Mens Rea model. According to this model, the defense attorneys must negate the mens rea of a crime without as much access to psychological records in court. A benefit of this model is that it makes it much more difficult to gain an acquittal, weeding out potential ‘fakers’ that abuse the defense. However, it comes at the cost of mentally ill defendants’ rights being violated. As I have contended, the abolition of the current statute and resorting to a Mens Rea model would violate Due Process and 8 th amendment rights. Jean Philips, a University of Kansas Law professor, supports this notion by stating “by replacing the extrinsic defense of insanity with an evidentiary rule intrinsic to offense elements, the Mens Rea Model unconstitutionally abolishes an essential category of mens rea which is concerned with legal capacity as a precondition for criminal responsibility” (Phillips 461). If the Mens Rea model violates constitutional rights, then obviously it is not fit to be standard in criminal courts of law. ”

Conclusion “It is easy to see why the debate continues on. However, the absence of an insanity defense statute would be anything but beneficial to the criminal justice system. Although many insanity defense trials include atrocities committed by the defendants, it is imperative that their constitutional rights remain intact in criminal courts of law. While the opponents of the current statute raise valid points, the Constitution requires such a law and therefore no abolition should commence. Rather, efforts should be reallocated to better aid mental health professionals to determine the state of mind of defendants at the time of the crime. Injustices such as the original conviction of Andrea Yates show the importance of this assertion. Additionally, the abolishment of the current insanity defense statute would violate due process in addition to the mentally ill defendant’s 8 th amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore any abolishment would be unjust. ”

Works Cited Bard, Jennifer. “Why the Incarceration of Individuals with Serious Mental Illness Violates Public Health, Ethical, and Constitutional Principles and Therefore Cannot be Made Right by Piecemeal Changes to the Insanity Defense. ” Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy. Volume 12 Issue 6. Web. 2005. Bolum, Randy. Fulero, Solomon. “Empirical Research on the Insanity Defense and Attempted Reforms: Evidence Toward Informed Policy” Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1999. Le. Blanc, Stephen M. "Cruelty to the Mentally ILL: An Eighth Amendment Challenge to the Abolition of the Insanity Defense. " American University Law Review 56, no. 5. Web. (June 2007): 1281 -1328. Morse, Stephen J. “Abolition of the Insanity Defense Violates Due Process. ” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law. Volume 41, Issue 4. Web. 2014. 488 -495 Phillip J. Resnick, “The Andrea Yates Case: Insanity on Trial”, 55 Clev. St. L. Rev. 147 (2007). Phillips, Jean. “The Insanity of the Mens Rea Model: Due Process and the Abolition of the Insanity Defense. ” Pace Law Review. Volume 23 Issue 3. 2008. Simmons, Kenneth. “Should the Model Penal Code’s Mens Rea Provisions Be Amended? ” Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Volume 1, Issue 17. Web. 179 -203.