Insanity Defense FAQ

However, in real life, the insanity defense is rarely used and even more rarely successful. In this article, we explore the use of this defense in real criminal cases and answer some frequently asked questions.

What is the legal standard for an insanity defense?

Legal insanity is an affirmative defense used in criminal trials. This means the defendant admits to committing a criminal act but argues that they shouldn't be punished for some reason. For example, someone might claim they committed murder in self-defense. That's an affirmative defense.

The insanity defense acknowledges that certain mental illnesses can prevent someone from forming the mens rea (intent or mental state) required for a given crime. Some legal insanity rules refer to mental illness as a “mental defect."

The insanity defense evolved along with cultural views on mental health. High-profile cases like the shooting of President Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley Jr. often trigger shifts in the insanity defense.

Over time, courts have used several different standards to measure legal sanity, including:

• The M'Naghten rule
• The irresistible impulse test
• The Durham rule
• The Model Penal Code test

These rules often focus on a person's ability to control their actions or understand that what they are doing is wrong.

For example, under the M'Naghten test, the courts would consider both of the following factors:

• Whether a criminal defendant understood the nature of the crime
• Whether they understood right from wrong while committing the crime

The insanity defense standard varies in different jurisdictions. This means that one state might focus on different factors than another.

How often is the insanity defense successful?

Public concern over the insanity defense led to a significant narrowing of the rules surrounding it. Because defendants must meet such specific standards, the insanity defense is successful in only a fraction of cases.

How does the insanity defense differ from diminished capacity?

Diminished capacity refers to a defendant who cannot form the specific intent necessary for a given crime. It negates the intent element of the crime but does not necessarily mean the person won't be convicted.

If successful, the insanity defense typically leads to a "not guilty" verdict. In contrast, diminished capacity does not absolve the defendant of guilt. A lack of capacity often results in a conviction for a lesser offense.

Can someone who was drunk or on drugs use the insanity defense?

Generally, no. Some believe the insanity defense provides a loophole for those under the influence of substances. But, state laws will often address situations where mens rea might be absent due to factors within a person's control.

For example, let's say a person gets drunk in a bar. If they choose to drive and get in an accident, they cannot use the insanity defense. Their impairment occurred by their own choice.

Keep in mind that the insanity defense is different from diminished capacity and the ability to stand trial.

Does someone found not guilty due to insanity get an "easier" sentence?

Contrary to common belief, a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity usually doesn't mean the person walks free. States often require mental health treatment or institutionalization for those found not guilty due to insanity. Often, this means a longer confinement than if they went to jail.

The rare successful insanity defense usually results in a commitment to a mental hospital, which can be just as restrictive as imprisonment. Also, unlike a prison sentence, the person may be held in a mental hospital indefinitely.

How do psychiatrists get involved in criminal cases?

The insanity defense is an evolving area at the intersection of law and psychiatry.

Psychiatrists may become involved in a criminal case if the defendant is their patient. Or they may act as consultants. They often evaluate individuals and the circumstances of the crime. This involvement introduces unique challenges, especially concerning issues such as confidentiality.

What are some real-life examples of the insanity defense?

Criminal defendants face an uphill battle when using the insanity defense. The legal standards are strict, and judges are often skeptical. But, the defense has been used in a few high-profile cases. We discuss two of these cases below.

John Hinckley Jr.

In 1981, John Hinckley Jr. attempted to assassinate then-President Ronald Reagan. Among other mental health issues, Hinckley had an unhealthy obsession with actress Jodie Foster. In Hinckley's mind, the assassination attempt was a way of getting Foster's attention.

Hinckley's defense argued that he suffered from acute psychosis and major depression, and his actions were a result of his delusional obsession with Foster.

During the trial, mental health experts testified that Hinckley was not fully aware of the consequences of his actions. The jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity. This led to his commitment to a psychiatric hospital rather than a prison. Hinckley spent years undergoing treatment and evaluation.

In 2016, after decades of psychiatric care, a federal judge released Hinckley from treatment, stating that he no longer posed a danger to himself or others. The court allowed Hinckley to live with his mother for two years, then granted him the ability to live on his own in 2018. In 2022, a judge ordered Hinckley's unconditional release.

The successful insanity defense in the Hinckley case highlighted the complexities of mental health issues in legal proceedings and sparked debates about the adequacy of the insanity defense in the legal system.

Andrea Yates

In 2001, a Texas jury tried Andrea Yates for the murder of her five children. Yates suffered from severe mental illness at the time of the offense.

At her trial for capital murder, Yates' attorney used the insanity defense. They argued Yates' post-partum depression at the time of the crime made her not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury rejected this argument and found her guilty. She received a life sentence.

The public showed great interest in the Yates trial. Some sympathized with Yates' battle with post-partum depression, a severe mental disorder.

At her trial, four out of five psychiatrists and one psychologist testified that Yates didn't know right from wrong at the time of the crime. This showed a defect of reason. However, the mental health expert called by the prosecution testified that Yates knew right from wrong.

Facts later revealed that the state's expert had presented false testimony regarding Yates. A Texas appellate court later reversed her conviction and ordered a new trial.

The Yates case demonstrates that, in some instances, pleas of insanity can garner support. Nevertheless, such a defense is still difficult to prove. States also have not made significant efforts to revise their versions of the insanity defense in recent years.

Questions About Criminal Defense Strategies?

The insanity defense in criminal cases is complex. It applies in only a small number of cases and is exceedingly difficult to prove. If you're facing criminal charges, an experienced criminal defense attorney can help you find the right defense strategy.