Since the victim of a murder is just as dead if his murderer was insane, what difference does the state of mind make? Do we punish the deed or the intent?
Why are the insane not responsible for their actions? I guess I don't understand the ROOTS of mens rea after all.
Can some legal beagle give me a nutshell version of the doctrine's derivation?
I found this on a legal website somewhere:
not guilty by reason of insanity
"This plea is more of a defense then a response to a criminal allegation. Technically a defendant will have committed the physical act constituting the crime but claim no legal responsibility because he or she was insane when the crime was committed. Since all crime must include criminal intent, the defendant’s insanity plea is recognized as a complete defense to the charge -- thereby making the defendant not guilty."
Don't like it, that's why I want to change it!
I happen to believe that genuine insanity is very, very rare, and I would not object to raising the burden of proof for a defendant who claims insanity.
What is the Purpose of the Insanity Defense?
An insanity defense is based on the theory that most people can choose to follow the law; but a few select persons cannot be held accountable because mental disease or disability deprives them of the ability to make a rational / voluntary choice. Such individuals need special treatment as opposed to prison; punishment is not likely to deter future antisocial conduct of these mentally diseased individuals.
As far back as ancient Rome, legal codes distinguished between those who were "lunatics" and not accountable and those who were sane and responsible.
The Shift in Perception
Before the 1970's, the public outcry over a jury finding a person "not guilty by reason of insanity" ("NGRI") was not nearly as great as it is today. In that time period, insanity acquitees regularly spent many years (even a lifetime) locked in institutions for the criminally insane. An insanity acquittal was a showing of compassion and a recognition of the cruelty to inflict punishment on someone who did not know his actions were wrong. More importantly, the public could rest assured that a person committed to a mental institution would not be walking the streets anytime in the near future (if ever).
In the past twenty years, however, this country has seen a more rapid release of NGRI's from hospitals. This pattern of early release is due to two factors: (1) court rulings that insanity acquitees are entitled to the same constitutional due process and equal protection rights of civil patients; this makes it more difficult to keep an individual in a hospital after recovering from mental illness; and (2) advances in psychiatric treatment. Thus, for the very first time, large numbers of NGRI's could return to the streets. Accordingly, the public is less receptive to a NGRI verdict because the length of confinement may be exceptionally short and a person released is able to exert all rights of a regular citizen; as the person technically has not committed a crime.
In order to fully understand the controversy surrounding the defense of insanity, it is necessary to trace its roots through history -- beginning in 1843 -- when the first uniform insanity rule was developed.