The Insanity defense

Is the insanity defense morally justifiable? Everytime a major case appears in the news, where a criminal is "let off" because they have been found not guilty by reason of insanity, there is a public uproar. The justice system has gone soft.

This essayette will attempt to defend the insanity defense, as a requirement of a justice system that holds people to have libertarian free will* for their actions. In particular, it will attempt to press the case for an extension of the applicability of the insanity defense. The term insanity should not be an all or nothing matter, but decisions based upon mental illness should reflect the degree of incapacity of the defendant.

In normal/ideal circumstances, we hold a defendant completely responsible for the criminal effects she has caused. Thus, if a someone breaks into your home and threatens you, you will hold her responsible for being in your home, threatening you and having caused the smahed window that facilitated her entrance. But, if we have a fuller idea of the facts, which hopefully in court we do, we may come to realise that the defendant was suffering from the paranoid delusion that demons would destroy the world if she did not break into your house and kill you. In this case then it seems natural to forgive her. At least, you do not hold her responsible for her actions. If she did not suffer her paranoid delusions, then she would not have attacked you. Therefore, it's the paranoid delusions that need mending, not her.

Notice that until we have all of these facts, we will still blame her. If you do not agree that you would forgive her of responsibility, imagine a clearer case. Think of a case where the reason the defendant committed the crime was purely due to a mental illness, where the insanity defense seems like the only appropriate response for the criminal law. Until we have the relevant facts, we will still hold that person responsible for the act. In court, we should have all the relevant facts. Therefore it should be the place where the phrase "not guilty by reason of insanity" is most commonly used.

The insanity defense does not let criminals off, it is the only just solution to the problem. It best meets the needs of our theories of punishment. By giving an insane defendant medical help, we protect society and we give her the best chance of rehabilitation. Medical treatment is her just desert. Other theories of punishment do not apply in this case. There would be no deterrent effect of incarceration, and there is no need to be a retributivist here either. We decided that she was not responsible for her action, therefore she deserves no punishment. The morally right thing our society should do is not to morally condemn her, but attempt to heal her.

So far, I have followed a pretty standard approach, that most commentators and public agree with. Now comes the tricky part, expanding its application. Although it may be clear to most that the really insane should not be locked up, what about the sort of insane? I think that they should be afforded a sentence that will best meet the needs of the defendant, victim and society at large.

This means assessing the extent to which the mental illness contributed to the crime, and will probably contribute to future crimes. Because of the uncertain nature of the assessment, the benefit of the doubt should be on the side of society. What this means however, is that where jail will adversely affect a patient's mental health, that option should be taken out. If we must punish people, simply because they deserve to be punished, then we should punish them at a time when they are capable of being punished. If someone if mentally ill, that person cannot comprehend the nature of the incarceration.

Many will claim that to extend the insanity defence will allow real criminals to abuse the system. Well they will try, that's what criminals do. But to argue that because some will attempt to abuse the system entails that no one is entitled to the system is a big step. One must completely deny the skill of medical health practitioners. To become a psychiatrist is hard. You have to be smart to get the qualifications, and you have to be good to get a job. Criminals tend to be stupid, therefore psychiatry should be able to tell.

We should extend the insanity defence because it of the critera we have for moral responsibility in law. We use ultimate responsibilty. Therefore, where this responsibility is diminished by a mental illness, we should seek to heal that illness, because it is responsible for the crime. The insanity defence, and an extension of its application, meets the needs of all our theories of punishment, because punishment in its strictest sense is not applicable.

*e.g. We hold people ultimately responsible for their actions. An action is caused by an agent, and the causal chain begins with that agent. See Robert Kane, The Significance of Free Will.