Ethical and Legal Issues 727
States’ Rights: Doing Away With the Insanity Defense
Some states have abolished the insanity defense, replacing it with some other type of
defense that recognizes that a defendant did not have “free will” while committing
a crime (Meyer & Weaver, 2006). Two alternative options are:
- Diminished capacity, whereby a person, due to mental illness or defect, was less
able to understand that the criminal behavior was wrong or to formulate a spe-
cifi c intention. With this defense, the person is still considered guilty but receives
a lesser sentence, is convicted of a lesser crime, or receives a modifi ed form of
punishment. This defense contains variations on the two elements of the ALI test
of insanity.- Guilty but mentally ill, whereby a convicted defendant is often sent to a psychiat-
ric facility and, if his or her mental state improves over time, may also serve time
in prison; alternatively, the defendant may be sent to a prison immediately, where
he or she may or may not receive psychiatric care. Note that with guilty but men-
tally ill, the person isn’t acquitted (that is, found not guilty of a crime), and there
is no guarantee that mental health services will be provided (Meyer & Weaver,
2006). In fact, in many states, prisoners who have been found guilty but mentally
ill receive no more psychological treatment than do other prisoners (Wrightsman
& Fulero, 2005).With the Insanity Defense, Do People Really
“Get Away With Murder”?
After the Hinckley trial, some people perceived the insanity defense as a way to
“get away with murder.” But this perception isn’t very accurate. Consider a land-
mark study of 9,000 felony cases across eight states from 1976 to 1987 (Steadman
et al., 1993). Among those cases, only 1% used the insanity defense. Further, only
one quarter of that 1% of defendants were acquitted (that is, found not guilty of
the crime). And of this 0.25%, only 7%—2 cases—were acquitted by a jury rather
than a judge. This indicates that the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity was
rare and, even where it was employed, was not very successful. Researchers have
also compared the average time spent in jail by defendants who were found guilty
(5 years) versus the average time spent in a mental hospital by those who were
found NGBI (4.7 years) and concluded that when the insanity defense is used suc-
cessfully, people do not “get away with murder” (Meyer & Weaver, 2006).
After Committing the Crime:
Competent to Stand Trial?
Whereas the insanity defense refers to a defendant’s mental state at the time the
crime was committed, his or her competency to stand trial is based on an evaluation
of mental state during the time leading up to the trial. That is, does a mental defect
or disorder prevent the defendant from participating in his or her own defense?
Competency to stand trial usually entails being able to- understand the proceedings that will take place,
- understand the facts in the case and the legal options available,
- consult with his or her “lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding”
(Dusky v. United States, 1960), and- assist the lawyer in building the defense.
These aspects of competency can be independent of each other; someone can have
one ability impaired, but have the others intact (McArthur Research Network,
2006). Until recently, the courts and lawyers have viewed competency to stand trial
as an all-or-nothing condition—a defendant either can or can’t. With the all-or-
nothing standard, Goldstein was found competent to stand trial.
Competency to stand trial
The mental state during the time leading
up to the trial that enables a defendant to
participate in his or her own defense.