Forensic Verdicts or Psychiatric Justice 137Literature Review
The Purpose of the Insanity Defense
It must first be noted that "insanity" does not refer to mental illness alone. It is
a common misconception that "insane" equates to "mentally ill" or "psychotic"
or "crazy." It is often thought that "the insane" are those seeking (or not seeking)
help from the mental health profession. In fact, "insanity" is specifically a legal
term that is not used in psychological literature. Black's Law Dictionary (Garner,
1996) defines "insanity" as "any mental disorder severe enough that it prevents one
from having legal capacity and excuses one from criminal or civil responsibility"'
(p. 319), Thus, insanity is a legal standard that must be differentiated from the
medical and psychological conceptions of mental illness, psychosis, and the like.
While the presence of a mental illness is often required for a finding of "insanity."
it alone is not sufficient. We explore this distinction later in this section.
The insanity defense is generally invoked by those considered to be of unsound
mind at the time they committed their offense. Historically, society tends to hold
criminals responsible for their actions. That is, we regard their crimes as having
been committed by rational persons who have made a free choice concerning their
actions. Naturally, society finds justice in punishing such offenders. In other cases,
however, persons committing crimes are thought to be too irrational to have made
a sound decision regarding criminal actions. In such cases, we have been reluctant to
impose punishment on such individuals. In instances where persons have committed
crimes without being aware of what they were doing, why they were doing it, or
who may have been unable to control themselves, society often feels that these
persons need not be held liable for their actions and, in some cases, are in need of
compassion. Thus, the prevailing attitude has been that such persons are in need of
treatment rather than punishment.
The American legal system is based upon the notions of morality and blame-
worthiness (Melancon, 1998). To be criminally responsible and therefore subjected
to punishment for one's actions, one must be capable of making a moral decision
regarding one's actions to be blameworthy. Theories of punishment are founded
upon the idea that human beings are free to make rational decisions concerning the
actions in which they engage. Therefore, such individuals are to be held account-
able for their actions. Insanity (i.e., mental disease or defect) is thought to interfere
with such free and rational decision making. Therefore, the presence of insanity
does not allow for an individual to form "criminal intent." Such intent (i.e., metis
red) is necessary for a finding of blameworthiness under the American legal system.
It is generally held, then, that the insane offender is better served by rehabilitation
than punishment. If one is unable to make a rational decision about one's actions,
punishment is unlikely to persuade one (or others) not to engage in similar behav-
ior. In light of the questionable value of punishing the mentally ill, rehabilitation
through hospitalization and psycho-medical treatment is generally considered to be
in the better interest of the individual and society.