Insanity Defense free essay sample

One of the original insanity defenses is defined by the M’Naghten Test; it is still currently being used by twenty five states. The M’Naghten Test states that a defendant should not be held responsible for his actions only if, due to his mental disease or defect, he did not know that his act would be wrong; or did not understand the nature and quality of his actions. The Durham/New Hampshire Test is another form of insanity defense. This test states that a defendant is can be not found not guilty if his mental illness was the reason for the crime. This is also known as the Product Test. This test has much broader rules regarding the insanity defense; however, it did deal with the issue of possibly convicting mentally ill defendants. This could and did happen when using the MNaghten Rule. The Durham standard did however draw a lot of criticism due to its expanded definition of legal insanity and the ease at which some defendants were able to use it. The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, in effect, seriously changed the definition of insanity and how it could be used by a defendant and or their attorneys. Basically it took the ability to plea insanity back to the Victorian era’s idea of right and wrong, after the original M’Naghten case in the murder of Robert Peel. This act mirrors the MNaghten rules except that it requires that the defendant must suffer from a severe mental defect, and, more importantly it places the burden on the defendant to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there is a severe mental defect, this is a twist to normal court procedure where the burden of proof would normally be on the state. This is a much more stringent rule brought about by Congress because of the John Hinckley acquittal and the public outrage that followed. Senator Strom Thurmond heavily criticized the insanity defense used by Hinckley’s lawyers for exonerating a defendant who obviously planned and knew exactly what he was doing. There is a case in Texas that involves Andre Thomas, who is currently on death row for the murder of his wife and two children. After he killed them he cut out their hearts and carried them around in his pocket. Prior to being put on trial for murder he plucked out his own right eye, and since then, on death row he has gouged out his remaining eye and ate it The Texas courts say that he is not insane, nor does he suffer any severe mental deficiencies. A judge on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals wrote in a concurring denial of his appeal that Thomas is clearly crazy, but he is also sane under Texas law. After medication and psychiatric treatment, Mr. Thomas was found competent to stand trial, because at that point he was able to communicate clearly with and assist his attorney in his defense. At trial, he was found to be sane at the time of the crime because he knew the difference between right and wrong and will be put to death if he understands what execution means and why he is being killed. Though he was unsuccessful in his insanity plea, he should be the poster boy for reform for the insanity defense, especially after the knee jerk reactions that caused the Insanity Reform Act of 1984. In another case from November of 1978 a former San Francisco City Supervisor, Dan White, shot and killed Mayor George Moscone and Harvey Milk. The defendant broke into City Hall through a basement window to avoid metal detectors, used particularly lethal ammunition, and reloaded his weapon at least once during the crimes. White was convicted in 1979 of Voluntary Manslaughter after his attorneys mounted what would become known as the â€Å"Twinkie Defense†. This was a misnomer, because Twinkies were never actually brought up or referred to at the trial. Martin Blinder, a psychiatrist, testified that Dan White was severely depressed at the time of the shootings. Several factors were cited that indicated White’s deep depression; he had quit working and deliberately avoided any contact his wife and family. White, who was usually clean-cut, was disheveled and dirty in appearance, he also was previously known as a fitness fanatic who had recently begun consuming copious amounts of junk food and soft drinks. This according to Blinder was a result of his deep untreated depression. Another psychiatrist, George Solomon, testified that White had exploded and was sort of on automatic pilot at the time of the killings. Defense attorneys were successful in persuading the jury that White was diminished in his mental capacity for rational thought and jurors found him incapable of the premeditation that would be required to obtain a murder conviction. In Michigan, in 1977, Francine Hughes killed her husband Mickey by pouring gasoline all over and around their bed while he was drunk and passed out, lit the fuel and burned him to death. At her trial she claimed to have been beaten for over fourteen years by an abusive husband who threatened to kill her numerous times if she tried to leaving him. She and her attorney claimed that she had been temporarily insane at the time of the killing and was not guilty for that reason. The jury agreed and she was acquitted. Her case was one of the precursors to the battered women’s syndrome as a defense, and proof of a women’s right to self defense in her own home. This is a perfect case example for the use of the temporary insanity plea. The insanity plea as a defense certainly has its place among the courts and the American justice system. It is unfortunate though, that some high profile cases get all the media coverage and tend to overshadow other cases where the defendant is most certainly insane or at the very least incapable of determining what is right from wrong. In the case of Andre Thomas who is on death row, I don’t know of anyone that would contend that he is sane. Certainly he is not sane enough to have stood trial and be on death row. If we have to forcefully medicate someone to get them to a point where they can finally realize what they have done is wrong, how can we say that they were sane at the time of the crime when they were unmedicated? How is it possible that we have to forcefully medicate someone so that they understand that they are going to be executed and why? If they were unmedicated could they understand? Doesn’t this show that they should be under mental or psychiatric medical care and not under the penalty of death? I am not saying that they should ever be let loose on the streets again, but, to kill someone who was insane or of diminished mental capacity at the time of a crime, is even more insane to me, killing them is not the answer, it’s tragic.