Insanity Defense

Ever since it’s beginning in America, people have struggled with defining the insanity defense. One of the ideas was the “M’Naghten rule.” This idea came about from “a Scottish woodcutter, Daniel M’Naghten, who tried to kill Prime Minister Robert Peel but fatally shot Peel’s secretary instead. M’Naghten, who insisted he was trying to stop Peel from killing him, was acquitted” (Brian Doherty 34). From this case, the conclusion was drawn that a defendant legally should not be held accountable for the crime if it was because of “a defect of reason” caused from a “disease of the mind.” This was due to the person being unaware of what he or she was doing or he or she was oblivious that it was morally wrong (Doherty 34). Believe it or not, the idea that dates back to 1843 is still a reasonable excuse for today’s criminals. The insanity defense has many problems, and the government is finally realizing this reality.

A major problem with the insanity defense begins with the actually diagnosing of the illicit. Psychiatrists are said to be able to diagnose people of being “insane.” If this “insane” person committed a crime, the person is believed to be unaware of their wrong doing (Richard Vatz 57). To be used in court, one would think there would at least have to be scientific evidence to back it up. However, they do not have scientific evidence to back it up, but rather they simple observe the person. From this, psychiatrists are able to diagnose the patient. A psychiatrist for the Andrea Yates’ case believed Andrea was incapable of making the decision about killing her children. Her conclusion was not based on an in-depth brain test, but it was rather found by simply observing Andrea (Doherty 34).

Because there are not set guidelines on diagnosing a patient, psychiatrists often use their own beliefs on what a person is suffering from. With everyone’s opinion differing, they most often than not have different findings after simply “observing” a patient. In the case involving Andrea Yates, the psychiatrists had completely different findings. The defense psychiatrist believed that Andrea was mentally insane at the time of killing her five children. The psychiatrist stated that she was one of the “most severely mentally ill” individual she has ever treated. The prosecution psychiatrist believed something completely different compared to the defense’s opinion. He believed that Andrea was not insane at the time of the crime but rather became psychotic after committing the crime (Vatz and Weinberg 48).