10/05/2018
The Insanity Defense: Not At All What You Thought
A common misconception is that using the insanity defense will give you less jail time. It’s often viewed as “the easy way out,” but it is actually quite the opposite. Let’s say you took two people who committed exactly the same crime, under the same set of circumstances. One was found guilty but not criminally responsible (insanity defense), while the other was found guilty and sentenced to prison. The one using the insanity defense is almost guaranteed to be confined to a forensic mental health treatment center, and under the supervision of mental health officials for the majority of their life—if not entire. The other person would serve their jail sentence, and then return to society. The difference is that people are sentenced to treatment when they are found guilty but insane—not just remanded to incarceration. While “treatment” generally includes elements of psychological services, it is essentially involuntary confinement in a facility that looks like a psychiatric ward and a prison had a baby—and an ugly baby at that. It is definitely not a 4-star resort by any means. Those who “take the insanity defense” are not sentenced to a specific number of years, like the way it works when someone goes to prison. Instead, they are hospitalized until mental health officials deem they are safe to return to society—no matter how long it takes.
I worked in one of these forensic mental health centers, in both maximum and medium security facilities. A large portion of the individuals there had committed some type of crime, and found not guilty by reason of insanity. Many of them had committed their crimes 25+ years prior, and were still under the confines of the hospital. As the years pass, and they display “good behavior,” they are afforded more privileges, such as spending time outside, or working in the hospital cafeteria. Some would eventually be afforded the opportunity to leave the hospital entirely and live in apartments supervised by staff. You’d be surprised at the number of patients who would either turn down this privilege or intentionally do something that would land them right back in the hospital (for example, repeatedly fail to follow rules regarding keeping their section of the apartment clean). I likened it to the old man in the movie, The Shawshank Redemption, who commits su***de after he is released from prison. This character is so used to life in prison, and feels he belongs there, that life on the outside proves to be too intimidating and overwhelming. It may not make a whole lot of logical sense, but then again emotions and aspects of the human psyche tend not to.
The insanity defense comes into play when a person commits a crime but suffers from a mental or physical condition which impairs their ability to understand they are doing something wrong or control their behavior. A study by the National Institute of Mental Health found that the insanity plea is raised is only about 1 percent of criminal cases—and even then only one in four were successful. While insanity is entirely a legal concept, the foundation is rooted in moral principles and adherence to social norms. The concept is that individuals who truly cannot understand they have done something wrong should not be held criminally responsible. For example, I heard a story the other day about a young child who accidentally left the door open and his infant brother wandered out and made his way onto a highway. If the baby died and an adult had been responsible, they could possibly be charged with manslaughter. Even if the baby survived without a scratch, the adult could possibly be facing charges related to child endangerment. I’d be willing to bet that most adults would agree that you certainly wouldn’t have a child brought up on criminal charges because they truly lack the capacity to appreciate the consequences of their actions. By the way, I know I’m not the only one who immediately wondered where the adult was in this situation…
Perhaps part of the public outcry with the insanity defense is that it appears to let people off the hook when they have committed what most would consider the most heinous types of crimes. For example, Andrea Yates received national news coverage when she drowned her five children in the bathtub after her husband left for work. I totally get why the public was outraged when they heard about this case—and I think even people who don’t have kids would be equally as disgusted. A mother murdering her children goes against a basic expectation within society: women are primary caregivers, and they experience a need to do this out of both instinct and how they are raised. Also, children are so helpless in many ways and cannot defend themselves from an adult trying to harm or kill them. So, of course people experience a visceral response when they hear about a child being murdered—and it is even more incomprehensible when the crime was committed by their own mother.
Despite all this, I’m willing to say that as a psychologist, and with the information that is available publicly about the case, I think the insanity defense was warranted in this situation. Andrea Yates had a long-standing history of experiencing post-partum depression and post-partum psychosis. Various news outlets reported that over the course of several years, she was in and out of psychiatric hospitals, treated with anti-psychotics, engaged in self-mutilation, and attempted su***de. Post-partum depression is certainly more common and in the overwhelming majority of situations causes absolutely no harm to the child. However, a very small number of women will experience post-partum psychosis. Psychosis is the hallmark of schizophrenia, and is characterized by hallucinations and delusions—or some combination of both. Basically, this means that an individual sees or hears something that doesn’t exist or adamantly believes things that are false or strange. It is nearly impossible for these individuals to tell the difference between reality and fantasy. They exhibit behavioral changes, paranoia, mood disturbance, become disconnected from the world, and fail to meet daily life responsibilities.
Andrea Yates was both extremely ill and committed an utterly deplorable crime. I cannot express that second part enough—especially as the mother of an infant. However, I believe these are the cases in which the insanity defense was designed for. In these situations, the defendant is acknowledging that they did indeed commit the crime, but that there was an explanation for the behavior. Explaining the circumstances is far different from receiving a pardon or being excused/forgiven.
I’m curious to hear your thoughts and opinions, so please feel free to keep the conversation going on my social media. I know this debate challenges the notion of justice and morality, so it can get heated—but then again that’s exactly what makes forensic psychology so interesting.
