Insanity defense has been considered as a loophole in the law allowing a number of guilty people to be set free. However, this so-called loophole rarely sets people free of criminal charges. Moreover, most of the cases involving insanity defense are murder cases. Many scholars, judges, attorneys and clinicians are said to be divided concerning the definition of insanity (“The Insanity Defense”). In reality, though, it is impossible for them to be truly divided concerning the definition of insanity, seeing that clinicians in our times have modernized means of determining a person’s mental state, e.g. psychological testing and brain scans.
What is more, psychologists are aware that there are neurological processes affecting a person’s mental state. Hence, brain scans may be easily used to understand the physiological condition of an individual charged with murder. Even the history of insanity could be made available through brain scans, given that there is a genuine difference between the neurological processes of people showing abnormal versus normal behavior.
Therefore, scholars, judges, and attorneys must know that their understanding of the definition of insanity is irrelevant if clinicians are available with scientific evidence of insanity of an individual charged with murder. Since psychological testing is scientific, there should be no loophole whatsoever in this area. As a matter of fact, insanity is an acceptable defense. Eric Michael Clark shot a police officer to death because he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and believed that aliens were stalking him.
According to the law of Arizona concerning insanity defense, the man had to prove with “clear and convincing” evidence that he was too mentally ill to know that he was wrong to murder an innocent police offer (“The Insanity Insanity Must Be An Acceptable Defense 2 Defense”). The Supreme Court got involved in Clark’s case. Fortunately, the man was backed by the American Psychiatric Association in addition to the American Psychological Association – two entities based on true scientific principles (Lane, 2006).
Most states of America have differing laws regarding insanity defense (“The Insanity,” 2007). With the support of both the American Psychiatric Association as well as the American Psychological Association – who believe in helping out mentally ill individuals that have been charged with murder although their mental health is not in their control – it is hoped that all states of America will work on a single law on insanity defense in order to make the loophole in the law completely vanish.
This single law would also make insanity defense cases more straightforward than before. After all, abnormal psychology as a science has made it abundantly clear that there is an illness called paranoid schizophrenia, and there are many people suffering from illusions, delusions, and hallucinations. To doubt that these people are ill is, in fact, insanity as well as a sin. This is because we will be depriving of treatment a large number of mentally ill folks if we do not even believe that they are mentally ill.
And, what if these people enter jails to commit more murders? What if they kill themselves in prison after they have been unlawfully charged with crime? Whose responsibility would that be? In point of fact, mentally ill people require immediate healing instead of punishment. Besides, putting them through court trials may worsen their mental condition. Many people who oppose the insanity defense have assumed that mental illness is a myth, and those who label others as mentally ill are actually imposing violence and control on people.
Thomas Ssasz stated that psychologists and psychiatrists use such labels only to make political and ethical decisions (“The Insanity”). It can be argued, however, that people who are Insanity Must Be An Acceptable Defense 3 unaware of the scientific basis of abnormal behavior are ignorant at best. Such people are the reason why books on the history of abnormal psychology claim that in the olden times people killed numerous mentally ill folks simply because they were mentally ill. There was no treatment for such people, and nobody cared enough to stand for their right to be treated.
Slowly but surely, future generations began to believe in the reality of mental illness. ‘Humane treatment’ of the mentally ill was suggested as a cure. Today, however, we are abusing the principles of ‘humane treatment’ by putting the mentally ill people through prolonged court trials. It would be best, therefore, for lawmakers to acknowledge that first of all, psychology is a science just as much as biology; and psychologists and psychiatrists are qualified to determine the mental condition of an individual.
If, in fact, mental illness were a myth, the Supreme Court and everybody else involved in insanity defense trials would have worked on closing down mental hospitals as well as the clinics of the well-educated psychologists and psychiatrists, who happen to know their science more than lawmakers would ever be expected to understand psychology. The fact that the government has not closed down psychiatric clinics and mental hospitals shows that society at large instinctively believes in the reality of mental illness, and realizes how painful it can be.
Hence, it is utterly useless to argue against the insanity defense. Insanity Must Be An Acceptable Defense 4.
References Lane, C. (2006, April 20). Supreme Court to Review Insanity Defense. Washington Post. The Insanity Defense. Cyber Essays. Retrieved November 6, 2007, from http://www. cyberessays. com/Politics/126. htm. The Insanity Goes On. (2007). Crime Library. Retrieved November 6, 2007, from http://www. crimelibrary. com/criminal_mind/psychology/insanity/11. html.