Defense of the Insanity Defense

Alan Stone in Chapter 17, begins his discussion of the insanity defense by defining the basic nature of the law, and the basic nature of psychiatry. He argues that the law is formal, rigid, traditional, objective and judgmental; psychiatry is flighty, expansive, unconventional, subjective, and understanding. There seems to be little room for common ground. Stone intimates, that what the law wanted from psychiatric investigation, was rock-bound methodology that explained aberrant behavior. During the 1950s the Durham decision further cemented the relationship between the two disciplines. The California Supreme Court seemed more willing to be lead by psychiatric reasoning, giving more credence to the insanity plea, and bring the concept of diminished capacity to the fore.

Diminished capacity gave leeway to the idea that mental disabilities less severe than those associated with insanity could interfere with an individual's ability to premeditate or choose to do evil. In recent years, with increasing criticism of the insanity defense, the pendulum has begun to swing in the direction of law, not psychiatry. Within the last twenty plus years the Durham decision has been repudiated by the same D.C. court that accepted it. The California Legislature has abolished diminished capacity, and the mood is increasing to separate psychiatry from legal matters on a more formalized basis.

In defense of the insanity defense, Stone points out that while many high profil

Related Essays

Insanity Defense The insanity defense does not remove the responsibility of a criminal act from the perpetrator, instead it is a criminal defense arguing that at the time the .... (1558 6 )

Insanity defense .... Specifically, the court found that section 25 was "intended to reinstate the defense of insanity to the status which existed prior to [People v.] Drew." Before .... (10105 40 )

The insanity defense The insanity defense has been a controversial legal tactic for centuries. .... Winslade, William J. The Insanity Plea: The Uses and Abuses of the Insanity Defense. .... (1582 6 )

Insanity Defense and the Jury .... the various factors which influence jurors in their decisions concerning the criminal responsibility of a defendant who has raised the defense of insanity. .... (4485 18 )

Problems with the Insanity Defense .... sentences for career criminals, harsher sentences for those using violence in other crimes, and less inclination to excuse criminals with an insanity defense. .... (2432 10 )

ense of dismantling insanity, as a means of excusing personal actions, Lykken invokes ancient societal doctrines. First, is the ancient doctrine of just desserts, which reflects the public's need to see justice done. Next is the principle of deterrence, which is to show the miscreants that some behaviors will not be tolerated. Third in this line of reasoning is the premise that society should be protected by the segregation of dangerous persons. Last in Lyyken's line of reasoning is the principle of rehabilitation, which he claims is sadly out of line with reality, it does not work. Lykken's most salient point, regarding the insanity defense deals with the differences between law and psychiatry. The law wants know who is responsible and eventually, who can be considered guilty of a crime. Psychiatry is not equipped to make that distinction, cannot classify actions as determined or undetermined, and therefore is in no position to pronounce the relative innocence or guilt of anyone. Lykken does not propose that the insanity defense be eliminated, merely separated from the purely criminal proceedings which delineate who was responsible for the actions in question. After this is decided, the insanity defense can be taken up in a hea

Category: Government - D