Sometimes, when one person kills another, the defense offered in court is that although the accused did commit the crime, they should not be held legally culpable because they were insane. How is such a person deemed insane? Before we decide that a person is legally insane, we first have to determine what it means to be sane, much less insane.
The most general definition of “legal insanity†is that a person “did not know right from wrong†â€" not knowing that their action was wrong, they did not know it was immoral. This is, essentially, the standard contained in a variety of major formulations of valid insanity pleas:
...it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing was wrong; or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong. (M’Naughten’s Case, 1843)
A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, a person lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. (American Law Institute Standard, 1962)
It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. (Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984)
All quotes come from Criminal Law, by Scheb & Scheb.
When applied appropriately and responsibly, it seems like a good idea that our justice system incorporates such a principle. After all, wouldn’t it be barbaric to punish a person who honestly did not know that they were doing something wrong? Such a person needs to be treated and helped â€" at the very least, they need to be prevented from mistakenly harming others in the future.
We should also be able to agree that such people exist. It would be unreasonable to say that no one is “insane†under definitions like the above. Mental illness is genuine and there are people out there who can’t interact with reality quite right.
There are serious problems, however, with identifying just what it means to “know right from wrong.†It is not a matter of simply knowing that an action is illegal â€" quite the contrary, in fact. A person can be regarded as insane even though they realize that their actions are illegal but if they also believe that they are adhering to some separate standard.
There are two possible philosophical premises from which we can make a case for the legitimacy of an insanity defense: an absolutist and a relativist. We’ll take a look at each to see whether or not they make sense, given other philosophical principles.
« Capital Punishment | Absolutist Defense of the Insanity Plea »
No comments:
Post a Comment