Pleading Insanity
Pleading insanity or providing a mental health-related defence in criminal law cases is seen as invalid by most. A lot of current judges and jury members find mental health excuses to be a cheap way out, not a legitimate explanation for why the defender deserves some grace. In an era where we have finally started to publicly recognize and address mental health, people across the world deserve to see this pattern expressed in the legal system as well. So, the question is, how valid exactly is pleading insanity? How can the court accurately determine deteriorating mental health and still issue an appropriate sentencing? However, many people focus on their doubts about mental health excuses, and completely fail to see the damage this causes, often outweighing the number of cases where it is exploited instead.
Pleading insanity lies in proving that the defendant is not mentally competent. Mental competency is showing that the defendant can communicate rationally, that they comprehend what they have done, and are aware of what they are being charged with. Proving competency is incredibly easy, and automatically takes away the option of pleading insanity. However, in 1847 during People v William Freeman, the Supreme Court decided that, even if competency is proven, evidence can be presented during the trial to defend the defendant's insanity.
There are still many complications when it comes to proving and handling insanity in court. The first real test of this was during the M’Naghten case in 1843. When Daniel M’Naghten shot and killed a British Prime Minister, he stated that he thought the Prime Minister was conspiring against him. Being the very first time the court had to handle insanity, they simply placed M’Naghten in a mental institution for life. With the uproar this caused, the first steps in establishing a clear standard for insanity were taken. The M’Naghten rule directed that insanity could only be assumed if the defence were able to prove that, due to a “defect of reason, from disease of the mind,” the defendant was not aware of the severity of their actions and did not realize they were committing a wrong. However, the M’Naghten rule falls short in assessing different kinds of psychological disorders where one was acting out of their own volition, and usually only applies to schizophrenia and psychotic disorders.
The Irresistible Impulse and the Durham Rule tests are used to assess psychological states that the M’Naghten rule can not. The Irresistible Impulse test is used when a defendant is aware of what they are doing, yet can not find a way to stop themselves due to a mental disease (Ex., kleptomania). Usually, using this as an argument, the court can declare a defendant not guilty due to insanity. The Durham Rule actually originates from a case where Monte Durham broke in and out of mental institutions and prisons. Convicted of housebreaking, his attorney appealed. While Durham did in fact know right from wrong, the court chose to reform the M’Naghten rule when they realized it was misleading to the nature of insanity. It directed that one can not be criminalized if their unlawful act was a product of mental disease. The Durham Rule was generally seen as a step forward, focusing on psychological evaluations instead of legal formalism; it quickly caused issues. It tended to prove too lenient to the defendant since the law didn’t have a clear enough definition for the term “mental disease", leaving the rule underutilized today.
The point of having so much representation for the mentally ill is not to excuse what they’ve done. The current stigma many people have stems from the fact that these accommodations are seen as justification for the crimes committed. In reality, the rules and laws that help diagnose insanity achieve fairness. If someone’s brain and mind don’t work in the same way as their sane counterpart, why should they be tried under the same context? 40% of incarcerated people in the criminal justice system have some kind of mental health issue. Mental illness causes a lack of understanding and control, which should be considered. A mentally ill person and a sane person can commit the same crime, but will never have the same amount of intent and understanding as the other. Working around stigma and proving incompetence is a slippery slope, but is crucial to the fairness of many trials.
To sum it up, pleading insanity is not only a valid rationalization, but a necessary one at that. In a judicial system that promises fairness, we must provide accommodation for the mentally ill, just like everyone else. Lawmakers still need to advocate to expand access to mental health care, and our communities still need to tackle their own prejudices about crimes by the mentally ill. Nevertheless, the progress made within the last few decades shows that the representation for the mentally ill is growing and one day will properly support those who need it.
Bibliography
Cornell Law School. “Insanity Defense.” LII / Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 2018, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/insanity_defense.
Shorts, Adam. “The Impact of Mental Health in Criminal Defense Cases - Eldridge and Cravens.” Eldridge and Cravens, 30 Jan. 2025, ecattorneys.law/the-impact-of-mental-health-in-criminal-defense-cases/.