Insanity Defense

The Insanity Defense

Introduction

The insanity defense touches on ultimate social values. Whenever it is introduced, whatever the result of a particular trial, it arouses controversy and clamor for abolition or reform. However, it is somewhat odd to receive such an attention since the insanity defense is introduced in only 2 percent of capital cases (Simon & Ahn-Redding, 2006). In addition, it has survived throughout history despite continuous and harsh criticisms by abolitionists. Alan A. Stone (1982), professor of law and psychiatry at Harvard Law School, asserts that the insanity defense is essential to the criminal justice system since it is deeply rooted in the moral and legal tradition of our society. And David T. Lykken (1982), professor of psychiatry and psychology at the University of Minnesota, maintains that insanity defense jeopardizes confidence in the law because of its defective definition, procedure, and effects.

A Difficult Necessity

Stone (1982) contends that insanity defense is a difficult necessity to the justice system, and its charges the abolitionists insist are mostly from people’s misconception of the reality.

Perspective on the Reality

Stone (1982) asserts that the insanity defense is not an important part of the realistic picture of our current criminal justice system. The first reason is that insanity defense is rarely invoked and rarely successful despite public perceptions to the contrary. Roughly one case in a thousand criminal cases invoked insanity defense and, of them, only ten percent won acquittals (Barclay, 1980). The surprisingly small frequency of insanity acquittals shows how numerically insignificant the insanity defense really is, thus the charge that defendants frequently use the insanity defense to avoid punishment insanity is inaccurate.

Second reason is that the insanity acquittal is trivial when compared with the real problems, collapsing the criminal justice system and threatening the public safety,...