CJA201Case3
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Trident University International *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
201
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by ElderParrotMaster912
1
RUNNING HEAD: INSANITY DEFENSE
Insanity Defense
Gerardo Romero Maldonado
Trident University International
2
Insanity Defense
Insanity Defense
The legal concept of insanity defense used in US courts has been the subject of much
scrutiny, with those advocating for it as a Constitutional right and others who believe it only
serves to stigmatize mental illness. Historically, the insanity defense has been used in about 1%
of felony cases and of those cases, their success rate stands at 15% to 25% (Wendzel, 2020). A
notorious and recent case would be that of James Holmes, the perpetrator of the 2015 Aurora
Theatre shooting in Colorado who killed 12 and wounded several others. State psychiatrists
assessed Mr. Holmes and concluded he was sane, yet his defense claims he was going through a
“psychotic episode” (Reed, 2015). It is essential to understand all aspects of the insanity defense
in U.S. courts, considering both its potential to protect the rights of the mentally ill and its
implications for justice and public safety. This assignment will cover the basics of the insanity
defense and arguments against its use in criminal cases. Let us dive deeper into the debate at
hand.
What is the Insanity Defense?
Since colonial times, the American way of life has been heavily influenced by English
tradition, including law. The history of the insanity defense in American jurisprudence can be
traced back to the 1843 trial of Daniel M'Naughten, whose trial created the renowned
M'Naughten Rule. Over time, the insanity defense has been altered or expanded, stemming from
standards created by the irresistible impulse test, the Durham test, and the legislation passed
under the Comprehensive Crime Control Act (Feuerstein et al, 2005). The insanity defense is a
legal theory in the American justice system that allows those accused of crimes to claim that they
shouldn't be punished for their conduct, as they were suffering from a mental condition and are
unable to recognize, appreciate, or control the nature of their choices made (MacBain, 1983).
3
Insanity Defense
The mens rea, or criminal intent, is what is argued in court, and mental disorders, may negate
that intent (Morse & Hoffman, 2007). In the US, it is imperative to understand that court
proceedings differ from state to state regarding handling mentally unstable defendants. Half the
states use their form of the M’Naughten rule while others employ the Model Penal Code, a more
modern test to determine one’s legal insanity (Times Editorial Board, 2019).
The states of
Montana, Idaho, Utah, and Kansas, however, have abolished the insanity defense altogether
(Landness & Holoyda, 2021). Opinions and arguments have differed across past years. Now let
us understand the arguments against the use of the insanity defense.
Arguments Against the Insanity Defense
Arguments on both sides are plenty, and those opposed to the insanity defense hit on
many aspects of the proceedings. Malingering would be one of those aspects. The falsification of
mental illness to avoid trial has presented itself in US courts, such as the trial of United States v.
Batista (2007). After being arrested in possession of illegal narcotics, Mr. Batista’s defense
requested a mental evaluation. Over the course of two years, he would be evaluated five times.
The clinicians concluded he was malingering with “significant, incontrovertible, and
overwhelming evidence” (Eliason & Chamberlain, 2008). Ultimately, he was sentenced on June
2
nd
, 2005. Cases such as these highlight the low success rate of insanity defense cases. Diagnoses
of individuals also prove to be a complex and subjective process, which many argue is a reason
to void the insanity defense altogether. In the case of Barcroft v. State of Indiana, we can witness
that even with expert testimony, courts may continue with their verdict. Three experts in mental
health deemed the defendant, Lori Barcroft, was legally insane. However, the court ultimately
deemed her competent enough to convict her. The state pointed out that there were many flaws
and contradictions in the expert’s testimonies on Mrs. Barcroft, and the decision was based on
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
Insanity Defense
“…probative demeanor evidence reflecting her appreciation of the crime at the time of its
commission” (Indiana Supreme Court, 2018). Though the defendant had a history of mental
illness, and even with expert testimony, the court rejected the defendant's motion as she
“exhibited deliberate, premeditated conduct in the weeks and days leading up to the crime.”
Again, cases such as this show why insanity defense cases are difficult to prove, let alone win.
Conclusion
The insanity defense remains a deeply debated and complex issue within the United
States legal system. It was important to explore the historical development and various standards
associated with the insanity defense, shedding light on its intricate nature. We have examined
arguments against its use in criminal cases, and the cases of United States v. Batista (2007) and
Barcroft v. State of Indiana (2018) underscore the challenges and controversies that surround this
legal concept. Ultimately, the decisions regarding the use and standards of the insanity defense
rest in the hands of lawmakers, legal experts, and society at large. The complexities of this legal
matter serve as a reminder of the ongoing challenges in achieving justice and addressing mental
health concerns within American jurisprudence.
5
Insanity Defense
References
Eliason, S., Chamberlain, J. (2008).
Competence to Stand Trial
. Retrieved from
https://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/36/2/255.full.pdf.
Feuerstein, S., Fortunati, F., Morgan, C. A., Coric, V., Temporini, H., & Southwick, S.
(2005).
The Insanity Defense
. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2993532/.
Indiana Supreme Court. (2018).
Supreme Court Case No. 18S-CR-135
. Retrieved
from https://cases.justia.com/indiana/supreme-court/2018-18s-cr-135.pdf?
ts=1543869365.
Landess, J.S., Holoyda, B.J. (2021).
Kahler v. Kansas and the Constitutionality of the
Mens Rea Approach to Insanity
. Retrieved from
https://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/early/2021/03/31/JAAPL.200086-20.full.pdf.
MacBain, W.A. (1983
). The Insanity Defense: Conceptual Confusion and the Erosion
of Fairness.
Retrieved from
https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1911&context=mulr.
Morse, S.J., Hoffman, M.B. (2007).
The Uneasy Entente between Legal Insanity and
Mens Rea: Beyond Clark v. Arizona
. Retrieved from
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=7274&context=jclc.
Reed, B. (2015).
James Holmes's Defense Team Set to Begin Insanity Case in Theater
Shooting Trial
. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-
6
Insanity Defense
news/2015/jun/25/colorado-shooting-trial-james-holmes-defense-insanity-
case.
Times Editorial Board: LA Times. (2019).
Editorial: The Insanity Defense isn’t
Available in Every State. It Should Be
. Retrieved from
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-scotus-insanity-20190319-
story.html.
Wendzel, B. (2020).
Not Guilty, Yet Continuously Confined: Reforming the Insanity
Defense
. Retrieved from https://www.law.georgetown.edu/american-criminal-
law-review/in-print/volume-57-number-2-spring-2020/not-guilty-yet-
continuously-confined-reforming-the-insanity-defense/.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help