HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF INSANITY IN INDIA Insanity defense has been in existence since many centuries; however, it took a legal position only since the last three centuries.
ROLE OF PSYCHIATRIST A standard evaluation procedure of all patients who plead insanity defense is absolutely necessary. It is unfortunate that till date, no such standardized procedures exist in our country. Psychiatrists are often called for conducting mental health evaluations and treatment.
Burden of proof in insanity defense Under law, every man is presumed to be sane and assumed to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his acts unless the contrary is proved. Every person is presumed to know the natural consequences of his act. Similarly, every person is also presumed to know the law.
The affirmative defense of legal insanity applies to this fundamental principle by excusing those mentally disordered offenders whose disorder deprived them of rational understanding of their conduct at the time of the crime.[1] Hence, it is generally admitted that incapacity to commit crimes exempts the individual from punishment.
Regardless of the precise legal standard, the insanity defense is rarely raised and even more rarely successful. It is used in only about 1% of cases in the U.S. and is successful less than 25% of the time.
According to an eight-state study, the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all court cases and, when used, has only a 26% success rate. Of those cases that were successful, 90% of the defendants had been previously diagnosed with mental illness.
However, the insanity defense is rarely used and hardly ever successful. This is generally because of the difficulty in proving legal insanity. Many criminal defendants suffer from mental illness and can produce evidence of this illness such as psychiatric or layperson testimony.
The success rate of the insanity defense varies across jurisdictions, but studies by Steadman and co-workers81 and Callahan and colleagues82 indicate that it is successful in approximately 25% of those cases where it is used.
4: Jeffrey Dahmer Just as John Hinckley, Jr.'s successful use of the insanity defense stunned the nation, Americans were also surprised when Jeffrey Dahmer's insanity plea was rejected. Dahmer was charged with two counts of first-degree murder and 13 counts of first-degree intentional homicide between 1978 and 1991.
District Court Judge Kathleen Kilnoski ruled Metzker-Madsen was legally insane when he beat Dominic Elkins with a brick and drowned the boy. Such verdicts are rare, but it's the second time this year a defendant in an Iowa murder case has successfully used the insanity defense.
created a special verdict of "not guilty only by reason of insanity," which triggers a commitment proceeding; and. provided for Federal commitment of persons who become insane after having been found guilty or while serving a Federal prison sentence.
Societal And Legal Pros & Cons Of The Insanity DefenseHistory of the insanity defense. The insanity defense in criminal cases goes back to the mid-19th century in Great Britain. ... Pro: It creates a middle ground. ... Con: The plea can be abused. ... Pro: It establishes guilt. ... Con: The jury may be pushed beyond its competence.
Rather, the elimination of an expanded insanity defense would result in restoring confidence in the criminal justice system and in psychiatry, would eliminate show trials, and would provide a more rational allocation of scarce mental health resources, with ultimate benefit both to the individual offender and to society ...
Under this much-misunderstood defense, a person can't be punished for serious crimes if the criminal conduct was affected by severe mental disorder. Roughly speaking, the defendant does not deserve blame because he was incapable of being rational. Blame and punishment in such cases is unfair, unjust.
Although cases invoking the insanity defense often receive much media attention, the defense is actually not raised very often. Virtually all studies conclude that the insanity defense is raised in less than 1 percent of felony cases, and is successful in only a fraction of those1.