Insanity Defense

“I heard screams…..pleas for help…..everything was in a blurry….I heard voices whispering cries of sorrow…moans of death……then suddenly, everything was clear…I’ve waken up from the horrible vision. There was blood everywhere… and dead bodies…..I am very scared. But then I noticed something that caused me shock……….
I was holding the knife: the knife that obviously killed them all…..”

Insanity defense is based on the belief that it is intrinsically unfair to punish people for their criminal acts if they are not mentally responsible for those acts. The insanity defense reflects a compromise on the part of society and the law. On one hand, society believes that criminals should be punished for their crimes; on the other hand, society believes that people who are ill should receive treatment for their illness. The insanity defense is the compromise: because it reflects society's belief that the law should not punish defendants who are mentally incapable of controlling their conduct.
The most popular is the "M’Naghten rule," which defines insanity as "the inability to distinguish right from wrong." Some countries have revised their laws to include "diminished capacity" or "guilty but mentally ill." Some also allow defendants to argue that that they understood that what they have done was a criminal act, however, they were unable to control it. This is sometimes called the "irresistible impulse" defense or the Durham rule.
The assumptions of these defenses were all the same: A mentally- disturbed individual who committed a crime should not be condemned because they do not have an idea of what they are doing or if they knew, they cannot control them.
Regarding the two cases presented, those of Abe and Pot, both can escape their criminal acts once they were proven to be mentally disturbed during the crime. Due to some factors, however, both can also be proven guilty. Why? Both did not have a reason to commit such acts because there was no evidence of dispute among these murderers and their victims. Moreover, Abe and Pot did not have a criminal history or even manifestations of strange behavior prior to the crime. Both were attacked by other factors that caused them to murder those people.
Abe had the Durham rule or the irresistible impulse. He acted based on a sudden uncontrollable force coming from his body. Without further thoughts, he stabbed his wife.
It was emphasized in the case that Pot had been drunk the day before the commission of the crime. It was likely that the effect of the alcohol was still present therefore contributing to the commission of the murder.
A policy position paper from the Alcohol and Drug Problems Association of North America discusses alcohol and drug dependence as a primary disease entity distinct from mental disorders. Therefore, Pot has no excuse because of the evidence that he was drunk. Pot’s case has a similar one in England. In 1843, in the McNaughton case. Englishman Daniel McNaughton shot and killed the secretary of the British Prime Minister, believing that the Prime Minister was plotting against him. The court acquitted McNaughton "by reason of insanity," and he was placed in a mental institution for the rest of his life. Just like Pot’s case, he thought that everyone who was blocking his way, including his wife, were his enemies and were planning to kill him.
Usually, the judges do not consider this insanity defense, regardless of what country. Or if they do, on the other hand, they will not let the murderers escape their acts. Yes, they won’t be put into prison, but they will be put into a mental asylum.
Personally, I think insanity defense is not acceptable. “Insane” people who have committed crime must still pay for the grave act they have done. They might have had this uncontrollable behavior during the time of the crime, however, they must still be responsible for it. They must be put to prison regardless of their state of mind during the moment they committed a certain crime. These criminals might have been victims of the circumstances; but so were the innocent people they have killed. These people were the ones fighting a losing battle here when the case come to court. Their murderers were severely “disturbed” during the time of the murder therefore giving them the benefit of being able to escape the accusations.
All of these for me are unfair. We are not just talking about material property that has been taken away by someone; we are talking about lives here: human lives. Lives that have been unfairly and suddenly taken away from the innocent victims. If the insane murderers were to be excused, this would truly be unfair to those victims whose lives were taken away from their hands by people who don’t even own them.





References:

When should an HYPERLINK "http://criminal.lawyers.com/" \l "two" insanity defense be considered?
HYPERLINK "http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law--Defenses-FAQ.html#two" http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law--Defenses-FAQ.html#two
Date retrieved: March 15, 2007

HYPERLINK "http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/insane/insanity.html" http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/insane/insanity.html
Date retrieved: March 15, 2007

HYPERLINK "http://www.jointogether.org/resources/alcohol-and-drug-dependence-a.html" http://www.jointogether.org/resources/alcohol-and-drug-dependence-a.html
Date retrieved: March 15, 2007

Smith, E., Hoeksema, S., Fredrickson, B., & Loftus, G. (2003). Atkinson and Hilgard’s
Introduction to Psychology. 14th ed. Australia: Wadsworth.