Posted by mair on March 13, 2002, at 17:15:20
In reply to Insanity, posted by ST on March 13, 2002, at 6:09:46
Sarah
The insanity defense is predicated on the notion that most crimes require a certain measure of intent, and that some people, for different reasons, may lack the capacity to have that intent. The definition of insanity is not uniform from state to state but the definition usually involves some variation of the elements of whether the person suffers from a mental disease or defect, and whether because of that disease or defect he was unable to either appreciate the criminality of his actions or conform his conduct to the law.
All crimes involve different elements - it's not just a matter of whether someone has discharged the firearm, for instance. Supposedly when someone is found guilty, a jury has made a determination that the prosecutor has proved each element of the crime. The insanity defense, says in essence, that the prosecution can't prove an essential element of the crime - intent, for instance because the defendant didn't have the mental capacity to form the requisite intent.
There's a huge misconception about the insanity defense in this country - that it's overused and that it gets a person "off." To the contrary, insanity defenses, even very good ones, rarely are successful. I think this has something to do with a jury's reaction to the crime, and with a need to find someone responsible. I actually think, although I have nothing to back this up, that insanity defenses were probably more accepted 100 years ago than they are now. I think people used to be much more comfortable with the notion that sometimes really awful things happen and there doesn't have to be a responsible party. I don't think people then felt the need to be in so much control of events and surroundings. Maybe it also has to do with the fact that people had more confidence that someone truly insane would be locked away. I also think that sometimes defendants are prejudiced by the fact that the person who committed the crime is not necessarily the same person jpresented at trial. Andrea Yates may have been hurt by the fact that she got alot of treatment between the murders and the trial. This is all speculation on my part.
It's obviously difficult to second guess the decision of a jury that actually heard the evidence, but from what I read anyway, Andrea Yates sounded to me like a pretty good case for the insanity defense, regardless of how monstrous her acts were. It rankled me that they charged her with capital murder to begin with - it's the popular tact for a prosecutor in a conservative state to take, but not, in my mind, the honorable one. And from my vantage anyway, it seems preposterous that the jury dismissed her defense quite as quickly and easily as they apparently did.
Sorry to sound so pedantic - this is just my very basic and over-simplistic understanding of the insanity defense and my uninformed opinions about why it so rarely works.
Mair
poster:mair
thread:19491
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020305/msgs/19786.html