Insanity

[Seducer of the Homeless]

what is Insanity?

more particularly, in the case of Forensic Profiling, when should (if at all) should an offender be 'let off' on a plea of 'Insanity'?


EDIT: this is for information for the essay i am writing in English Class. we assigned the ever so broad task of "write a speech"/essay on anything we want.

 

[snowqueen]

what is Insanity?

more particularly, in the case of Forensic Profiling, when should (if at all) should an offender be 'let off' on a plea of 'Insanity'?


EDIT: this is for information for the essay i am writing in English Class. we assigned the ever so broad task of "write a speech"/essay on anything we want.

Having worked in forensic psychiatric services I can tell you that even if you put in a plea of isanity, if you have committed a serious crime you end up detained at her majesty's pleasure but in a mental hospital with a forensic unit. The difference between that and a normal prison sentence is that the Home Secretary gets to decide when you get out (obviously with recommendations from the psychiatrist). So you can murder someone sanely and get, say 20 years, out in 15, but if you are the Yorkshire Ripper and murder people insanely you are likely to be incarcerated for life.

Not sure if that helps you - but I guess the underlying dilemma is that if someone commits a crime, society has to decide how and when that person gets back out on the streets. While someone may not be sane enough to stand for trial, they still have to be dealt with somehow.

Cultural differences - in France I think they still let people off for murdering lovers because of a plea of 'temporary insanity' - that could be worth exploring - is there such a thing as 'temporary insanity' or is it just an excuse for men and women to kill in jealousy - would we want such a plea here?

Does the whole 'insanity' argument depend on people not really understanding what insanity means? i.e. what mentally ill people are like.

Statistically, mentally ill people are less likely to kill others than sane people but that's not how we perceive mad people.

there you go - confused?

 

[Jaico]

Hmm. As it so happens, I have a textbook on forensic psychology right on my desk that I've been reading, so I think I'll be able to field some answers/suggestions (paraphrasing from the book/my own opinions on the matter). Stuff that's taken from the book is "in double quotes", while italics are things I want to emphasize, and 'single quotes' are for...uh, terms? Anyhow.

For someone to be declared "Not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI), the judge/jury must decide, not the psychologist. This is an important distinction - although the psychologist's evidence/testimony can obviously sway the decision, it is ultimately left up to the courts to decide whether or not the person NGRI. The law states that someone cannot be held as criminally responsible if they do not hold mens rea - i.e., they did not have a "guilty mindset" while committing the crime. Legally, insanity is when a mental disorder causes the person who committed the crime to be free from 'mens rea' - they could not distinguish 'right' from 'wrong'. Thus, a direct answer to your question would be:

A defendant should be 'let off' (I will talk about this slightly later in the post) if the judge/jury finds that the defendant did not possess a guilty mind while committing the crime due to a mental disorder.

However, it must be known that NGRI is not actually a very popular defense - only 1-3% of all criminal cases (according to Golding et al., 1999 - something from the book) use this as a defense; acquittal rates range from 20-25%. It should be noted that (apparently) judges are more receptive towards the plea for insanity, whereas juries (supposedly) have a number of misconceptions/negative views on the plea (Callahan, Steadman, McGreevy, and Robbins, 1991).

In addition, one must note the difference between competency to stand trial and insanity; both are legal decisions (not clinical). Insanity was described above, but competency is the mental state of the defendant during the time of the trial, not during the time of the crime. Therefore, a lot of times, competency may be 'restored' through the use of drugs, which can make the defendant seem stoic and much more in control of their mind - although this may not have necessarily been the case (it might have been, as well) during the crime.

But how does a forensic psychologist determine someone's mental state? Well, in all cases, a psychologist will be looking backwards to try and 'figure out' someone...the book says, "in addition to a clinical interview, the evaluator should obtain copies of police reports, hospital records, statements of witnesses, any past psychological tests, and employment records, if possible" to try and give impartial evidence to the courts so that they are able to make a more well-informed decision.

With regards to defendants being 'let off' by an NGRI...I don't think that's a good way of putting it at all. A lot of times, those who are found NGRI are hospitalized to institutions, and according to Golding et. al., 1999 (again!) the individual is hospitalized for longer than they would have if they had served their term for being convicted. Note that you cannot be institutionalized immediately; there need to be all sorts of reviews/hearings to determine someone's mental soundness; someone also can't be kept for an indeterminate amount of time - there are periodic reviews and such. An individual is only released once "there is no longer evidence of mental illness...the exception may be the case of sexually violent predators..."

I think that this is a very interesting and complicated topic (albeit exaggerated by the media) that has many, many different facets. I don't know if what I wrote will help, but good luck on your essay!

 

[Invoke Ninja's True Power]

Insanity is when I run out of weed and no one will sell/provide any to me!!!

 

[Seducer of the Homeless]

thank you very much snowqueen (you are so interesting too, how could a mother not be proud?)
and yes, i understand perfectly. i need to find more stuff to fill up my essay. i might do a bit on the definition of Insanity and maybe descend into Neuroscience and risk getting extremely anal about the whole thing. also add a bit on societies interpretation of insanity and ultimately the society's dictation of our morals and values, but i might descend into more overtly political ramblings. tying in to specific cases of serial murder which exemplify the area which i am talking about. throw in a sprinkling of humour/sarcasm and "pathos and ethos", but maybe not


EDIT: thanks Jaico (my internet disconnected, i got side-tracked by youtube and doughnuts as i posted)

 

[walfin]

Current situation in common law countries generally: M'Naghten rules
Some countries have Diminished Responsibility.

That is what is, though I realise you're talking about what should be (in which case I suppose you can argue on the basis of whatever philosophy you hold).

Another interesting side-point to explore is exculpation for intoxication (which can be considered "temporary insanity" in some places). Though all this is probably out of scope for an essay for an English class.

Just as an aside, it seems like there's not much point pleading insanity in Britain nowadays (where once upon a time it was useful in saving people from the gallows). Now, for countries which still have the gallows, it's a different story.

 

[Seducer of the Homeless]

and also, for me, i am wasting my time. because i know that a month or so (even a couple weeks) later i will think to myself how much better i would have done it at that later time than original. basically my mind is progressing at a rapid rate so what i do now will be rubbish in comparison to a month from now.