Reading Blog due Monday 3/5 @ midnight

It’s funny that we happen to be reading this chapter now, because I just learned a little bit about this topic in another class. Right now in my clinical psychology class, we are doing group presentations over various topics. One of the topics I just heard a presentation about was the incarcerated mentally ill. Now as the book points out, being mentally ill and the insanity plea are not the same thing, but the presenters did share some information on the insanity plea. The one thing I remember most was that they said less than 1% of all crimes fall under the insanity plea. I found this to be very interesting as this defense is so prevalent in television and movies.

The chapter starts off with talking about the Andrea Yates case. I also read about this tragic story last year in my abnormal psychology class. It makes me stick to my stomach just thinking about it. I found it very interesting that because of a faulty testimony, they had to retrial the case. The psychologist in me wonders how/why this Dr. came up with his Law and Order story. Just another example of how careful we need to be when listening to witnesses’ testimonies. It is also interesting to me, and probably the most surprising thing I read out of the chapter, that both of the juries came up with two different verdicts. Was this because the faulty testimony had so much weight in the first case? I doubt it. But it is interesting to me. I believe I would have personally voted with the second jury, that this woman is insane.

It is important to know the definition of insane in a trial. Insane means that the perpetrator AT THE TIME THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED did not know the difference between right and wrong. This means that a person can be severely mentally ill, yet still know the difference between right and wrong. This makes sense to me. Just like a child, you would not punish them for something they did not know they could not say or do. This also makes sense to me on why the rate of insanity pleas is so low; most people, no matter what his or her mental state, do know the difference between right and wrong.

There is then the argument of deterrence. Even though they may not have known it was wrong, they still committed the crime. If they are not punished for their wrong doings, how will they know not to commit the crime again? This also makes sense to me, which makes me feel very conflicted. I know that when I read that Andrea Yates will be released when she is no longer a danger to society, that made me very upset. This suggests that I am more in favor of the deterrence perspective on punishment. Even though she may not have had the mental capabilities to know what she did was wrong, she still needs to face the consequences for her actions.

I wanted to find something different for my sources. I knew most blogs would probably have a scholarly site about the insanity defense or a popular case where it came into play, but I wanted to look for something different. So I looked up to see where the insanity plea started. I wanted to know what case this first became an issue in, how it came about to be, etc.

In 1843 there was a Scotsman, Daniel M’Naghten, who believed he was part of a conspiracy. He believed that a pope and prime minister were going to murder him. M’Naghten decided to take an offensive strategy and confront the prime minister. However when he got to his office, he accidentally shot and killed the prime minister’s secretary. So then at his trial, multiple psychologists declared that Daniel was delusional and not responsible for his actions. The jury agreed, and found Daniel M’Naghten not guilty by reason of insanity. The public was not in favor of this ruling and became outraged. So a year later a British panel created the insanity plea, which has now been used since.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/aron/qa227.htm
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleyinsanity.htm

Before I read this chapter, I knew little about the insanity defense. One thing that has always stood out me when I think of the insanity defense is the benefit of letting someone pleads insane instead of guilty. A person can really benefit from going to an insanity clinic instead of jail, when it is appropriate for that person. I knew the general background due to crime shows, which are usually proven to be false. Other than that, I knew little. I had some general stereotypes about the insanity defense such as it only used to get people out of a crime and it was used often. However, I discovered that most of my original thoughts were actually wrong.
After reading this chapter, my idea about the insanity defense has really changed. The chapter reemphasized how obscure and inaccurate law shows are on TV. The thing that stood out me the most was the percentage of times people use the insanity defense. My general assumption that it was used often and almost always won. Instead of beings something that people plea on a daily basis, I learned that less than 1% in felony cases and it fails about 75% of the time. That is a large rate that I wasn’t expecting. Often, the insanity defense is portrayed as something that always takes place, and is used heavily in the court system. When in reality, it is taken into deep consideration before it is applied to an individual. Like any decision though, it isn’t easy to establish.
Learning about the different types of mental illness that are specifically direct to women was very interesting. I didn’t know that there were such significant levels after women give birth. After a baby is born, you think of a happy family—not a depressed mother that would turn against her children. There is also a significant amount of cases and test established in order to depict this diagnosis. At first, insanity was established through cognitive tests, or deciding if the person understood what is right or wrong. Today, I would never expect that to be a justifiable way to establish someone’s insanity; however, I think it gives a great foundation to where to begin. From there, society has moved to using other modes in order to establish insanity such as moving to the Durham standard test or the ALI standard. One thing I find interesting is the use of mens rea defense, which is used for crimes that need a specific mental state. This allows the defendant to go from a first degree murder to second degree or involuntary manslaughter when their state of mind is not all there. They are still doing time for the crime, but given a break due to mental incapacity.
It is interesting how again, the words and phrases, can shape how a jury comes up with a decision. Like we learned with interrogation and lineups, the investigator/interrogator can influence suspect’s answers due to the tone of voice or the word choice. The same situation can be distinguished here. Depending on how an individual defines the term “insanity” can change a jurors mind on if the defendant is guilty or not guilty. This was proven through various studies that Finkle conducted.
I decided to learn more about the Twinkie defense. I thought it was so weird how someone would allow a Twinkie to be the reason for a murder. The first article I found was from a writer who followed the trial during the time it took place. The article was intriguing and discussed how important issues such as where the gun had been reload, were just over turned and passed over. I was applied to learn that someone actually got up and made the testimony that “if not for the aggravating fact of junk food, the homicides mind not have taken place.” An individual form the Twinkies company testified saying that the Twinkies obtained two ingredients that would induce murderous behaviors.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-krassner/behind-the-infamous-twink_b_148474.html
The second website I found stated that the “Twinkie Defense” was all a myth. In the article, it states that the defense attorney declares that Twinkies were never even mentioned. It states that his defense was period bouts of depression that led to a larger mental illness. I think its interesting that two articles can be so very different when it covers the same case. Now, I am curious to know what really happened and which one to believe.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/23/INGRE343501.DTL&ao=all

Before reading chapter nine in the C&K textbook, I had some general knowledge on the insanity defense in the legal system. I had acquired most of the information in previous classes in both high school and earlier courses from college such as sociology and psychology. The insanity defense can only be used in a case if the defense can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not know/understand the difference between the rightness or wrongness of their actions. There have been cases where such savage serial killers actions would be expected to rendor an insanity plea, but in reality the killers understood the gravity of their crimes. That is basically all of the prior knowledge that I had before reading this chapter. However, this chapter has given me a much broader understanding of the insanity defense.

The insanity plea did always exist. In fact, for a long time mentally disabled that committed crimes were sentenced all the same as violent sane offenders. This created a vicious problematic cycle that did not serve true justice. The logic that created the insanity plea spanned fromt the retribution perspective, which explains that punishment should fit the crime. Contrary to this logic is the ideal that crime leads to punishment in any case. This is known as deterrence. However, insanity defense would come to be an installed part of the legal system with things like the M'Naghten rule. The United States also added provisions known as the irresistible impulse to the definitions in order to establish the defendant's inability to control their behavior. Furthermore, precedents like the Durham and Hickenly cases established further provisions such as the ALI standard and the burden of proof. The burden of proof provision forced the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane.

The insanity plea has evolved over time through both the English and American legal systems to become what it is today. It is important to note that this defense has still been changing and adjusting within the last several decades. For instance, the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 assummed the defendant initially sane, which would require the defense to prove insanity by "clear and convincing evidence." Furthermore, provisions were added that barred expert testimony in assessing a defendant's sanity. Although most states have reverted back to the M'Naughten rule, there are several states that have abolished the insanity plea altogether. Other measures have been added such as the Guilty but Mentally Ill provision which gives defendants prison sentences with the added implication that they recieve mental treatment during their sentence.

Defenses that have proven crucial in cases that involve both insanity pleas and violent crimes are known as Mens Rea Defenses. In a first degree murder case the defense must show that the defendant did not knowingly understand his actions, and there was a lack of premeditation involved. However, defendant's who may avoid first degree murder convictions because of insanity pleas may still be convicted of second degree of manslaughter because these charges carry different degrees of intent. The most famous example of this is known as the Twinkie defense, in which Dan White was convicted of manslaughter rather than first degree murder because of his mental state at the time of the crime and his level of intent in the crime.

The most surprising thing I learned about after reading this chapter was how involved the tests are which are used to assess an individual's sanity. The two major tests that are used are the Mental State at the Time of Offense Screening Evaluation and the Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales. The MSE eliminates defendants whose crimes were not affected by a mental condition. In this test individuals are screened to discover any initial mental condition and then referred to further testing. In the R-CRAS legal standards are compared to individual's ability to control their own behavior. The test is comprised of twenty-five different levels of analysis with five different possible repsonses. These test surpised me because I had never been aware of an actual psychological test of sanity existing. I had always been under the impression that sanity was determined completely on behalf of the legal system with some advisement from professionals.

After reading this chapter I wanted to learn more about the history of Andrea Yates' case. The details of the case were so shocking that I needed to discover some more possible sources of her mental disorder that would cause her to do something so horrible. What is so shocking about Yates is the fact there are no traumatic signs that her anything in her upbringing could have led to her developing such psychological issues. The best explanation for her psychological state is the extremely unconventional lifestyle her and her husband lived after getting married. The two became devout christians and lived in a hectic manner. Yates began to suffer from violent hallucinations that increased after each birth of a new child. The hallucinations often involved religious material involving the hand of satan in her children. The state of Yates' mental health finally reached its breaking point that morning she drowned all five of her kids. Yates has become a major staple in legal forums involving insanity.
http://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(06)69789-4/fulltext

3/5/2012
Blog Chapter 9
My knowledge about the plea of insanity before reading this chapter was limited to what I had seen in movies and on television shows. It was intriguing, seemingly possible, and mostly fabricated by Hollywood. Based on the few references to it in class prior to this assignment I knew that getting the plea of insanity to hold up in court was very hard to do. And it is not something that is that desirable. In the movies and on T.V. when someone legally insane they seem to get off scot-free and they usually then let the audience know that they were faking it the entire time – similar to what we saw in Primal Fear. I had a slight understanding that it was hard for a defendant to be deemed insane in the eyes of the court. I was also aware of the negative connotation that would result however, I was not aware of its full extent.
Clearly I learned a lot while reading this chapter. Chapter nine starts off with the case of Andrea Yates. It is a disgusting example of someone that was found insane in the eyes of the court (eventually). It made me quickly realize that the movies were portrayed insanity in a ‘nice’ way. Usually it was an adventure followed by a mystery and lots of beautiful people and only the people you didn’t like died. The harsh reality is that in the case of Andrea Yates the last people that should have died did, her five children, all under the age of seven.
The book defines insanity as the state a person was in at the time of the crime – a common misconception (I think) is that insanity is an ongoing thing. Once a person has it, they cannot get rid of it. Now I see it as something that comes and goes. Like the in the movie “A Time to Kill”. This is where a man’s daughter is raped and beaten by some young men then left to day after being thrown over a bridge. The little girl lives and when the young men are on their way to their trial the father of the girl shoots and kills them – in the courthouse with plenty of witnesses. The rest of the movie is about the court case that is against the father of this girl. They are trying to get him off on a plea of insanity; that at the time of the crime he was insane. However, because he is being tried then he is competent to stand trial. The difference between insanity and competence is that insanity deals with what the defendant was experiencing at the time of the crime. Competence is what condition the defendant is in at the time of the hearing.
Next, the book talks about the evolution of insanity law. All of which was new to me. I am going to generalize this portion of the chapter and then discuss the particular cases that brought cause for change or revision to the current insanity laws (there six). In general the laws change when there is a situation and cases that come about that requires it; that falls in a realm not well-covered or that shows error in the current law. Pretty much how I understand any law to be revised or created.
The first case is the M’Naghten Case. This where the term NGRI or not guilty by reason of insanity comes into play. This man set out to kill the Prime Minister – he was sentenced to be sent to a psychiatric hospital instead of prison. Instead he was spent the rest of his life in and insane asylum. This upset Queen Victoria and she out to establish new standards. As a result the M’Naghten rule was created. It had three parts. 1) a presumption that the defendant is sane and aware of their crime 2) at the moment of the crime the defendant was not able to reason correctly or had ‘disease of the mind’ 3) the defendant/perpetrator did not know the nature or quality of what they were doing or they did not know what they were doing was wrong. Terms that are relevant the this case include cognitive test, know and understanding whether one’s actions are right or wrong irresistible impulse, and volitional capacity, inability to control one’s behavior. One attempt that was made to define these standards or feelings was called policeman at the elbow test, it was whether or not the crime would have been committed it there was a policeman nearby. I Later it was considered too difficult to decipher whether one had and irresistible impulse or volitional capacity so those endeavors were no longer sought.
The second case was the Durham case. This reshaped the definition of insanity but it did not include a murder. This case deals with ex-military personnel who committed a series of crimes after leaving the military. He discharged as being unfit because psychological problems. So he has this diagnosis but when he was tried for these crimes he was convicted as if nothing were ailing him. This is when the standards shifted and it seems that the majority of the responsibility for conviction or getting the insanity plea was on the shoulders of the expert witnesses. Despite the other evidence against the defendant it was expert witness testimonies that were determining the outcome of the case. During this revision the ALI standard was born. It aimed to satisfy all. It was widely accepted by many states (approximately half).
There are many more court cases (four major ones) that have all played a role in redefining insanity in terms of the courts; each trying different measure and addressing areas that were not addressed earlier. New tests and measure have been put into place to aim for more accurate measures. The idea of the insanity plea means that there is something wrong with these peoples’ heads. How can one truly get into someone else’s head or mindset? We can look for symptoms, diagnostic criteria, measurements of certain behaviors, etc. But, in the end how are we to tell? If someone studies up enough or if the expert witness or doctors testing these defendant/suspects don’t have their heads in the game then something can be over looked. There is also the aspect of different expertise. We have medical/scientific people trying to make their work, research fit in with different laws. These two fields have very different goals. They have different research, different perspectives. It is like what Dr. MacLin said in class. When we are doing research for psychology our goal is have as little bias as possible, to get straightforward answers. When it comes to the law there are two opposing sides fighting to win. Not fighting to get the truth (necessarily). To me when we are addressing insanity in the court system is it like putting a cube into a round hole. We are trying to define something (insanity) that does not exist in psychology, but with psychological standards. This is all very interesting to me and I am curious to see what the future will bring. How many courts cases and subtle changes will have to occur before we can have a definitive answer for whether or not someone was insane at the time of the crime or even whether or not they are competent to stand trial.
I am very interested about this topic in general, but I chose to do further research on cases that have been tried recently and where people were pleading insanity. I wanted to know how likely it was that they would be found legally insane.
The first article I read seemed similar to Andrea Yates’. This woman brought her three sons to a bridge, she undressed them and then threw them off into ice-cold water. She was found insane and sentenced to a mental hospital. She was diagnosed schizophrenic and is not likely to ever be released. This makes me wonder why these children were even allowed to be living with their mother. The same thought I had when I was reading about Yates. These types of cases should be caught before a murder is committed.
The second case/article I read was about a 27-year-old middle school teacher who had sex with a 14-year-old student. She was found insane by one doctor but found to be sane by another. The boy told investigators that they spent time together from May until June then started having sex. They apparently were together at the school, at the teacher’s home, and in a car while the boy’s cousin drove them around. I think that this lady was sane and should be tried as such. When I read and think about someone being sane or insane at the time of the crime I imagine a one-time crime But, there were at least three instances here!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14950511/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/insanity-plea-case-boys-tossed-sf-bay/
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500202_162-709923.html?pageNum=2&tag=contentMain;contentBody

Before I read chapter nine I had very little background information about the insanity defense, and what I did know came from movies and tv shows. I thought that the insanity defense was something that was commonly used and also when it was used it would win most of the time. After reading this chapter my knowledge about the insanity defense has improved.
Chapter nine starts off by telling the story of the Andrea Yates trial. She plead not guilty by reason of insanity. In her first trial jurors decided to send her to prison but she received another because of a faulty testimony and this time she was found not guilty and sent to a mental health facility until she was no longer a danger to herself or others. I do not agree with this, I think that she should be in prison. While in prison she should be able to receive help but I believe she should be punished for what she did regardless if she knew what she was doing or not. Insanity is a term that is crafted by the law and not psychologists. It can be defined as criminals state of mind at the time the crime was committed and has requirements of because of a mental illness a defendant lacks responsibility and culpability for the crime they committed and they should not be punished. I agree with the retribution perspective on punishment, which is the punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed. There is also there deterrence perspective which suggests the individual should be punished so that they learn that committing a crime will lead to punishment. The insanity defense has been evolving since way back in the Roman Empire. They believed that if someone did not possess mastery of mind they should not be blamed. Someone must have a mens rea, guilty mind they could be found guilty. The M'Naghten case had a profound impact on the insanity defense. What is known as the M'Naghten rule is to be found not guilty by reason of insanity the defendant had to prove that he suffered from a mental illness that affected his ability to understand what they were doing and their ability to know if it was wrong. The term irresistible impulse was added to the M'Naghten rule which states that defendant could be acquitted if he was so dethroned by their illness that they wouldn't deprive them of willpower to resist the impulse, though knowing its wrong. This was short lived because it was hard to prove if the impulse was irresistible. The Durham standard was created saying the accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act is the product of metal disease or defect. After eighteen years of use this rule was removed from use. The American Law Institute suggested a revision stating, a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. In the Hinckley case he was found not guilty by reason of insanity with the most important factor being the burden of proof. This burden of proof is proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane. The insanity defense reform act was made in response to the hinckley case. This act entailed a presumption of sanity and the defendant prove by clear and convincing evidence that they were insane at the time of the crime. Also experts that testified in court were no longer allowed to state their opinion about if the defendant was sane or insane at the time of the crime. I think that even if they are not allowed to explicitly say their opinion they still have ways of expressing their belief about the defendants mental state through how they talk and what they say. In an attempt to resolve the problems with the NGRI defense the guilty but mentally ill verdict has been created. When someone is found guilty but mentally ill this means that they're sent to prison and receive treatment in prison or could be transferred to a psychiatric facility. The twinkie defense was created when a man killed the mayor and another former colleague then at court it was stated his mental state was impaired by depression exacerbated by heavy junk food intake. A study conducted by Rita Simon found that it didn't matter the different rules, M'Naghten or Durham, applied both groups came up with the same verdict. Similarily, Finkel conducted a study with M'Naghten test, Durham test, ALI test, irresistible impulse test and no test and like in Simons results the tests didn't have an impact on the verdict. There are some tests to help evaluate insanity. The Mental State at the Time of offense screening evaluation is one that screens defendants whose crimes weren't influenced by significant mental disorder. Another technique is the Rogers Criminal Responsibility assessment scales. This method seems more reliable because there is an actual scale of measurement. Faking psychological symptoms to be found insane is called malingering. This was seen in primal fear. The most surprising thing I learned in chapter nine was that the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all cases, and that in the cases when insanity defense is presented it fails 75% of the time. This is quite the opposite as what is presented in tv/movies.
I wanted to learn more about malingering. In the website below it states that if someone is accused of malingering they can be charged with obstruction of justice in some cases. It also states that in 16-18% of the people that present themselves as impaired are actually faking and/or exaggerating symptoms. The Rey Item 15 test, dot counting test, and test of memory malingering are just some of the tests that can be used to detect malingering.

Prior to reading Chapter 9 I only had a basic idea of what the insanity defense was. I know that in some cases of serial killers, murderers, and even rapists, the plea for insanity is used to avoid the death penalty or even life in prison. I never was sure on what grounds an attorney could use the insanity defense or what criteria was used to follow in order to deem a suspect “insane” enough to grant them this leeway. I knew for a fact though the insanity plea was a sort of luxury and without proper psychological or psychiatric examination of the suspect a counselor cannot on his or her own diagnose his or her client insane. Insanity defense isn’t something that be used very often nor is wanted to. It’s very hard to get this plea to hold up in court. But all of my speculation comes from what I’ve seen on movies and television. Shows like Law and Order and Without a Trace, that show the court parts of the criminal timeline, depict a very fiction and frequent usage of the insanity defense. We see that the defense attorneys are these cold-hearted individuals that try everything in the book to get their client off, and usually every episode or so they attempt at using the insanity defense. After reading chapter 9 I learned this isn’t completely accurate.

The chapter starts out with the famous case of Andrea Yates, a woman would was assumed severely insane because of her drowning her five children. Early in her life she believed that she would cause harm to someone and attempted to kill herself by the slicing of her own throat. Yates supposedly killed her own children to save them from Satan. The whole argument centered on her case is whether she understood what she was doing and whether she knew that what she was doing was wrong. There were two trials held for Yates; the first included some faulty evidenced which concluded in the need for a second trial. Through the eyes of the people, the woman was clearly insane. She believe Satan growled at her constantly and that the cartoon characters in the shows that she watched with her children spoke to her.

The concept of insanity “refers to the criminal’s state of mind at the time the crime was committed”. This is very important considering that some criminals, because of the crime they committed they go insane or succumb to a mental disease. Insanity requires that, due to a mental illness, a defendant lacks moral responsibility and culpability for their crime and therefore should not be punished. The very surprising thing and kind of ridiculous thing about this, is that legal definitions or the terms that determine whether a subject is insane or not don’t come from psychologist or psychiatrist, but from legislators and judges. You would think that would be the opposite. There is much confusion when it comes to diagnosing a suspect psychologically seeing as the criminal has to be LEGALLY insane at the time the crime was committed. Unfortunately, a suspect can be diagnosed mentally ill but not legally insane.
The concept of insanity has gone through many phases and sub-categories, if you will. “The insanity defense is built on the principle that people who commit crimes without full awareness should not be held fully responsible for their actions”. Starting with retribution, which basically says if you commit a crime you should be punished to the same degree as to which the committed crime was. This is a topic that makes sentencing “insane” suspects harder to do. Same with deterrence; a perspective on punishment that suggests an individual offender should be punished so that he or she learns that committing a crime leads to punishment. This is conducted in the hope that other offenders of the same kind will essentially, learn from the other’s mistakes. Only this topic is in fault when it comes to mentally ill suspects, seeing as most of them aren’t completely in touch with reality and it cannot be proven that they know wrong from right.

In the three important insanity cases, we’re taught the modern day criteria for the determination of an actual insane suspect. In the M’Naghten case, Daniel M’Naghten seemed to be a paranoid schizophrenic who believe that the government was plotting to kill him, so he set out to kill the prime minister of England. He accidentally killed the Prime Ministers secretary instead. Nine medical experts found him to be insane and the jury found him to be not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). The Queen was furious by his sentencing and was adamant about coming up with some new laws to prevent those of whom are like M’Naghten. Thus, the M’Naghten rule was born! It consisted of three components: 1.presuming that defendants are sane and responsible for their crime; 2. A requirement that, at the time of the crime the criminal must be under the influence of their mental illness; 3. A requirement that the defendant was not aware of the nature of the act he/she was doing, or if they did know that he/she did not know that what he/she was doing was wrong.

In the Durham case, Monroe was released from the U.S. Navy because he did not seem fit to continue with Military service. He attempted to commit suicide a couple years later and was after that placed into a psychiatric hospital where he remained for 2 months. At his trial for writing back checks and breaking a entering, he was refused the option to plead insanity and was found guilty; later in the court of appeals this ruling was overturned. Eventually, his case lead to the revising of the M’Naghten rule and evolving it into the ALI Standard. This standard stood to please everyone, combining the M’Naghten rule (inability to appreciate wrongfulness) and an irresistible impulse-like volitional prong (unable to conform his conduct).

In the case of John Hinckley, the ALI instruction played a big part in the case, being read directly to the jury. Hinckley, a college dropout, grew an obsession with Jodie Foster and the movie Taxi Driver. He traveled to Yale University to find her and eventually wrote out a detailed noted describing his love to her and his plan to most likely kill President Reagan; a reenactment of a scene in the movie. This note was never delivered. From reading the note in the book, I can say that it seems as though he knew exactly what he was doing you could even call this evidence to be premeditated manslaughter or murder. He knew what he wanted to do and even thought about it for days on end. He was deemed NGRI. This case epitomized all that was faulty with the insanity defense and the people were furious. They looked at this man as extremely guilty with video surveillance evidence as well as him being in such a right mind enough to stalk the president, buy a gun, and plan out the murder attempt as well as the letter to Foster.

Before reading chapter nine in Costanzo and Krauss's "Forensic and Legal Psychology" I discovered that I knew really nothing that was true about using insanity as a defense in the court room. I thought that this type of defense was probably first used a lot more recently then a couple thousand years ago. I figured in probably came into being during the early 1900's or around that time period. One reason for this is that back in the old days, especially in the time of the Roman Empire I thought that even if you were caught stealing a loaf of bread that the punishment was something like cutting off of the offenders fingers or hands,and even to the most extreme extent; death. I never would of thought that a civilization that could deem it okay to take another persons life or limb over a thing like a simple loaf of bread would think that maybe someone wasn't mentally aware of what they were during when they committed the action.

What I know about the insanity defense is that it seems almost impossible to attempt successfully in a court room. You have to really know the laws of the state you are in and how they will or hurt you when you are deciding how to present your case. I also was under the impression as a member of the regular population that most people as the book stated thought that the insanity defense was probably used to much in court and more people got away with crimes they should be punished for then what was really actually the case. I also believe Myself and others feel this way because of the way the media such as television channel like MSNBC just for example portrays a trial in which the defendent is attempting to use the pea not guilty by reason of insanity.

Some that really interested me and what I would like to know more about is they way that experts and lawyers in court present evidence and other facts of a case to the jury. I know that a lot of people don't go to college and jury duty is pretty much or is completely random assignment of the eligible population of an area. which leads me to want to know what is the average level of education that members of a jury have in a trial court. I think that having a lower capacity to comprehend what they expert(s) or lawyers(s) are saying can dramatically effect the way a jury or even a particular juror casts his/her vote on a verdict.

When a Jury is selected to serve in a case, before they deliberate to come to a verdict they are giving instructions on how to come to their conclusion. If people do not understand what is expected of the this could lead to flaws in the way they make their decision. I Believe there are two different types of people making this decision. The first are the people who actually understand what is going on and what needs to be taken into consideration in making the decision; the second type are the people who are not really sure what is going on and just act they do so they aren't embarrassed or looked down upon by their peers.

After looking on the internet I was able to find an article that demonstrates part of what I just mentioned. It is Mentioned in the Article that "Consistent with previous studies of mock jurors, this study found that actual jurors understand fewer than half of the instructions they receive at trial. Subjects who received judges' instructions performed significantly better than uninstructed subjects on questions about the procedural law, but no better on questions about the substantive (criminal) law". (Reifman, Gusick, and Ellsworth 1992). This would mean to me that even if the instructions were or weren't given the education that an individual has will be critically in the way they reach their decision while in deliberation.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g56571w17046k80x/

Prior to reading this chapter I had little knowledge about the insanity defense. I knew that with the insanity defense, the burden of proof is on the defendant's side to prove the insanity. The Insanity defense is very uncommon, despite what the media portrays. It is very hard to prove as well. I believe it has three parts that must be proven to gain the plea. The accused must have been in the affected state of mind during the crime. The affected state of mind must impair the accused sense of right and wrong.
Since reading the chapter my knowledge has broadened. I learned about the M'Naghten case which lead to the M'Naghten rule, the Durham case which lead to the Durham standard or the product test, and then the Hinckley case which lead to the development of the guilty but mentally ill verdict. I also learned more about mens rea defense. I thought the section over how jurors define insanity was interesting.
I decided to further research the Twinkie defense because I had never heard about it before and it sounded interesting to me. From an article in the Huffington Post, I learned that the defense was "a purely accidental tactic." From an article from TruTV I learned, " Although it was later called the "Twinkie Defense" by the local press, the correlation between junk food and White's behavior was never made at the trial." I thought this was really interesting that a jury would lesson a sentence based upon the claim the junk food caused depression that led to him killing someone.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/insanity/7.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-krassner/behind-the-infamous-twink_b_148474.html

Prior to reading chapter nine I only knew about the insanity defense from television shows and movies. I know that a lot of serial killers, murderers, and rapists sometimes plead insanity because they want to avoid the death penalty or prison for life. I know that there has to be a lot of evidence in order for the defendant to plead insanity. I always thought it was very difficult for the attorney to also prove to the judge and jury that his defendant was insane and what terms proved this. There are many different terms that the attorney has to follow through with to win the case.

After reading this chapter about insanity defense. I learned that the defendant could have been in a different state of mind when the crime was committed. This is important to remember because some criminals may go insane or be in a mental state after the crime is already committed so when they go to testify in court they need to make sure they have their timeline correct. The defendant has to be diagnosed as legally insane not mentally ill. I thought this was very interesting because I thought it was the same thing when it definitely is not the same in the court. I thought it was also very interesting that we learned about the insanity defense from England. I thought it was very surprising that the defendant had to be legally insane at the time of the crime in order to plead insanity. I liked reading this because I thought all people just tried to plead insanity to get a shorter sentence.

This website I found talks about a case in 1998 where this woman pleaded insanity due to a murder where the pope and British Prime Minister was involved. I really liked this website because it has an article about an insanity defense case and also has a frequently asked questions section which is helpful because if I hadn't read about the insanity defense in the chapter then I wouldn't really be familiar with it. These questions were just basic questions that help people understand why people plead insanity and how you can do it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/aron/qa227.htm

Going into the reading, the only knowledge I had of the insanity defense was what I have seen in the movies. I remember hearing about the Yates case in the news, but I was not too familiar with it. It blew my mind the manner in which she informed her husband of what she had done, as though she had locked her keys in her car again or something. What surprised me even more was that not only was the husband not angry with her, but he did not blame her in the slightest. I think that if I knew my wife suffered from such insane psychotic episodes and visions I would most definitely not be having more children with her. When he mentioned that she should have gotten the help she needed, he obviously knew something was seriously wrong already. This is beyond poor parenting on his behalf as well. At the very least, the children should have been put in the care of someone capable of giving them a life rather than taking it away. The only other case I had even heard of was John Hinckley. Something I found rather amusing and somewhat surprising was how eloquent Hinckley was. He was apparently well-educated, although I didn't really care for the mixing and matching of cursive and upper/lower case letters.

I was familiar with many of the terms used throughout the chapter including mens rea, actus rea, and burden of proof. Some of the newer terms I was intrigued by included both retribution and deterrence as they relate to punishment. I am convinced that I am on the retribution side. I am old-fashioned in the sense that I believe in the eye-for-an-eye philosophy. I would say my view on the insanity defense has changed only slightly after the reading. I agree with most of what the criminal justice system is trying to achieve in their efforts to further progress (as it relates to classifying individuals with severe mental disorders). However, it is still my belief that no matter what, you should pay for your crimes in a similar intensity as the one committed. If you murder an upstanding citizen for no reason simply because you are mentally deficient, I do not think that the state of mind should prevent the person from spending the rest of their days on death row (not to be released when they are no longer deemed a threat to society). I could understand not instituting the death penalty in such cases, but I do not believe the more severe offenders such as murderers and rapists should be given a second chance in society. They do need to receive help, but it needs to be behind bars. What is most important is that we work on getting help for the mentally ill as early as possible as to prevent these horrifying incidences from ever happening in the first place.

I thought the most interesting and surprising topic that was discussed in the reading was the section on post-partem blues/depression/psychosis. I had no idea that these mental illnesses were so common and that they could be so severe. A figure as high as 50-75% is hard to ignore. If proper mental health care is provided early on, I believe the progression to more severe forms of depression could be seriously slowed or halted.

I wanted to learn a little more about the John Hinckley case, especially about his background.

Hinckley was an spoiled rich kid who seemingly was not brought up in a manner which would allow him to succeed in the outside world. His folks were multimillionaires who apparently just showered their kid with money whenever he came calling or had a problem. I was very surprised to learn of the cost to attend one class at Yale ($3500?!). Hinckley was apparently well-liked as a teen earning class president status twice while playing multiple sports along the way. What makes a person lose touch with reality? In my opinion, Hinckley lived in a fantasy world without any responsibility for far too long. Perhaps he just got lost in this make-believe world that only he was living in and could appreciate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley,_Jr.

More recently, Hinckley was seen glancing at some books about assassination. According to one agent, Hinckley stopped and showed great interest in a section of books at Barnes and Noble highlighting this genre.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/01/the-day-john-hinckley-jr-walked-into-a-bookstore/251840/

This chapter was very interesting to me because I find mental disorders intriguing. I actually considered for a very long time being a mental health counselor. The opening story was very sad and unfortunate. Those boys were so adorable! I was a little shocked to find out that she was not found insane at first. IT also made me question expert testimony. Juries put a lot of weight on everything that comes out of an expert’s mouth, and they are under oath, so why would they lie about a TV show?

In cases that involve a potentially insane suspect, clinical psychologists are called upon to make this evaluation. Competency and insanity are two separate idea when it comes to law. Competency evaluates the mental state of the suspect at the time of the trial, and insanity refers to the mental state at the time of the actual crime. When a psychologist is analyzing a suspect, they have to take into account whether the person was aware of right and wrong. I found it surprising that most psychiatrists and psychologists don’t particularly enjoy having to do these evaluations. After reading all of Yates’ background, I found it a little unsettling that harsher measures weren’t taken to prevent this tragedy. She even said that, after attempting suicide, she felt like she was going to hurt someone. The idea of retribution plays a huge role in insanity and the law. People should only be held accountable for their actions if they knew that their behavior was wrong. I’m not so sure that the comparison of a 6 year old and a mentally ill person was the best one to use, but I guess it got the point across. Deterrence is also important because it does not apply to insane people. They cannot learn from the actions and punishments of others.

I thought it was very interesting that the concept of not guilty by reason of insanity has been around since the Roman Empire. I always figured that people back then were much less sympathetic. I liked that the three different cases were used to illustrate different changes made in insanity law. I learned about irresistible impulses and the policeman at the elbow test. I thought that the Hinckley case was particularly interesting. It doesn’t make sense to me how the jury could find him NGRI. Personally, I think that the ALI standard makes the most sense, but I understand there are flaws in all standards. I also learned that the burden of proof can be place on either the defense or the prosecution. Just because a person is mentally ill does not mean that the jury has to find them not guilty. In many states they have the option of a guilty but mentally ill verdict. The Mens Rea Defense is used when it can be proven that defendant couldn’t form the specific intent to kill because of a mental illness. The example that the book gave about a man thinking another man was an alien seemed a little far-fetched, but I guess it’s probably happened somewhere.

Because my role in our mock trial, I paid close attention to the section on how the jury defines insanity in order to learn more about what is expected of me. I learned that most of the time, the jury incorporates their own understandings of what insanity is even if they are given a specific set of guides.

It is difficult for clinicians to determine whether or not the defendant was insane at the time of the crime because that action is in the past. They have developed many different ways in order to make this process as accurate as possible. Tests have been created such as the Mental State at the Time of Offense Screening Evaluation and the Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales.

The most interesting part of this chapter was the actual process of determining insanity. There wasn’t really much about that, so I decided to look up more information on that. I found the case of Frederick Finger who killed his mother because he thought she was plotting to kill him. I learned that a court can actually deny a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. I always thought that the defendant was allowed to plea however he chose, and the judge and jury decided the verdict.

http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/Behv_Evid/Finger_insanity.html

Most of the information I knew about the insanity defense prior to this reading were mainly from movies, media, and a few articles. I understand that in particular situations and states of mind people lose complete control of their actions and when they come back to relatity they suffer from the consequences of their actions. Whether it be from their own internal quilt and sorrow or by the decison that is made from the jury in court. Now after reading I have a better understanding on how the process of determining whether a person is insane or not. Also that it is not very common for a person to get away with pleading insanity as much as the movie industry portrays. Reading about the different cases helped me learn how doctor's define a person to be insane. Reading about the three important cases gave me better knowledge about the history of insanity and how the definition has changed nowadays.

I thought it was surprising that there isn't a fixed definition of insanity. Legal scholars and legislators have argured about whether insanity should be defined as an irresistible impulse or the inability to distinguish between right and wrong. The important question is how actual jurors interpret these definitions in reaching a verdict. Each new and presumably improved definition of insanity is seen as a loose hypothesis. Researchers are investigating how jurors interpret different definitions of insanity. By changing the wording and phrasing of the definitions of insanity it will allow jurors to make better judgements and decisions during trial.

The story at the beggining of the chapter really bothered me. I did further research on the case of Andrea Yates. I couldn't believe that the women's husband would leave her alone with the children while knowing how unstable she was. Also the thought that a mother took the lives of her five children then called her husband and said "it's time" and "I finally did it" made me very suspicious. Those words to me made it seem like it was planned and that the husband was aware that eventually she would do it. I believe Andrea was guilty but mentally ill. I think she should have served time in jail after being released from the mental hospital. Dietz her lawyer said that Andrea stated that the devil left her after she commited her crime. Dietz then asked why would Satan leave after you obeyed him? Andrea stated, satan destroys and then leaves. This conversation between Yates and Dietz made me believe even more that she wasn't insane. After she killed her children by saying he destroyes and leaves made it seem that she made up the devil as an excuse to be insane. Kind of Ironic that Satan left right after she killed her children.

Here are a few links that I gathered some additional infromation from about the Yates trials.

http://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(06)69789-4/fulltext

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,218445-2,00.html

Before reading chapter 9, I actually knew quite a bit about the insanity defense. My knowledge came from mock trial which I participated in my senior year of high school. That year, our trial featured a paranoid schizophrenic who murdered an elderly woman by shooting off a bypass on I-35. In the trial, my role was the expert witness for the defense, a forensic psychologist. Because my role was completely centered around the insanity defense, I had to learn a lot about it. The legal definition of insanity was basically drilled into my head.
In order to be proven by not guilty by reason of insanity, the defense must show that 1) the defendant did not appreciate the nature and quality of their actions at the time the crime was committed, or 2) the defendant did not appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions at the time the crime was committed. In other words, the defendant either didn't know what they were doing, or they didn't know what they were doing was wrong and illegal. A person can be mentally ill without being legally insane. They can also be legally insane without being mentally ill (though that one is much harder to prove). There is also a defense known as temporary insanity, in which a person commits a crime under the influence of an "irresistible urge" that they cannot control. This defense is used a lot in crimes of vengeance. The insanity defense is very difficult to prove and hardly any of those who use it are acquitted. When a person who is mentally ill is the defendant, psychologists are called to test if the defendant is competent to stand trial. Competency of the defendant is based on their mental state at the time of the trial, not at the time the crime was committed. Therefore, a person could have been legally insane at the time the crime was committed but still able to stand trial. Usually between those two points, the defendant is prescribed medications to help with their mental illness. When the defense uses an insanity defense, it is common for both the prosecution and the defense to hire clinical psychologists the assess the defendant. A problem with testimonies from psychologists on both sides is the possible conflict of interest, since both psychologists are being paid to evaluate the defendant and testify. Usually the state-hired psychologist will say the defendant was sane at the time of the crime, while the defense-hired psychologist will say the opposite. They obviously couldn't have been both, so it can be difficult for the jury to decide which psychologist is "right." After reading the chapter, I learned a little bit more about the insanity defense. The chapter broke it down into a lot more detail, and I learned about how the insanity defense developed over time.
The chapter talks about several trials in which the insanity defense played a major role. These included the Andrea Yates case, the M'Naghten case, the Durham case, and the Hinckley case. These cases were important because each added an element to what we consider to be legally insane today. The book also talked about mens rea defenses, which state that the defendant didn't have the mental capacity to commit certain crimes. In our mock trial case, the insanity defense would have fallen under this classification. Because our defendant was shooting randomly off the top of a bypass on I-35, the state had to prove that she had the specific intent to kill the victim in order to get first degree murder. This was all but impossible in that case. One thing that I found really surprising from this chapter was the story about the Twinkie defense. The reasoning sounds so ridiculous, and yet the jury accepted it. I wonder what could have possibly been going through those people's heads.
The chapter continues by discussing different tests fora assessing insanity including the IDA-R, the MSE, and the R-CRAS. The book also talks about malingering, or faking psychological problems in order to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. This is what we saw happen in the movie, Primal Fear. I thought this idea was particularly interesting so I decided to study it a little more.
I found a lot about malingering of not just psychological illnesses but of physical ones as well. One article talked about the impact of malingering in patients with whip-lash after a car wreck. I thought this was interesting because I've heard of cases where people have been sued for car crashes because of cases of "whip-lash" suffered by the plaintiff. Exaggerated symptoms of the whip-lash probably made a judge more likely to rule in their favor, especially since in a civil case, there probably wouldn't be any expert testimony.
http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/64/3/339.abstract
Another article I read spoke about different methods of malingering detection used by "experts." I thought this article was interesting because it spoke a little bit more in depth about malingering testing.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887617703001124

Prior to reading chapter 9 from the textbook I knew very little about the insanity defense. I only knew about it from a past class where it was briefly discussed. Also I have seen it depicted in movies and other media outlets such as TV and newspapers. I knew that rarely is it used because often times it is not successful in helping someone become not guilty. I knew that is order to use this defense the defendant must be examined by a psychologist to get an experts opinion. I knew that often when it is used its purpose serves to get the defendant and off or a lesser sentence. For example if you were convicted of murder and are sentenced to life is prison and you pled insanity and win you could get a lesser sentence of like 20 to 30 years in prison.

After reading chapter 9 on insanity I learned a lot. Before I had an idea of what it was about but I never really knew the definite definition the courts go by. According to the textbook, Insanity refers to the criminal state of mind at the time the crime was committed. It requires that due to a mental illness, a defendant lacks responsibility and culpability for their crime and therefore should not be punished. Interestingly, the term for criminal purposes is defined by legislature and judges and put into legal terms. The legal definition can different from a psychological definition. Someone who clearly has a severe mental illness may not qualify for the insanity defense in using the legal definition.
Another important concept that is similar to insanity and fits in with it is the tem competency. Competency refers to whether or not a person is able to stand trial. Furthermore is refers to the defendants state of mind at the time of the trial. This idea was discuss in the Andrea Yates case who was being prosecuted for murdering her five children. After a psychological examination it was found that she was competent and able to stand trial.

The textbook also discussed three important cases that helped get the insanity defense where it is today. I don’t really want to go into detail about each case rather I think it is more important to discuss what came out of each case. The first of the cases was the M’naghten case. Stemming from this case was the M’naughten rule that has three components. The first rule state that a presumption that defendants are sane and are responsible for their crime. The second requires that at the moment of the crime the accused must have been laboring under a defect of reason or from disease of the mind. Finally the third was that the defendant didn’t know the nature and quality of the act that he was doing or that if he did know it that he did not know what he was doing was wrong. Next, the textbook discussed the Durham case. Coming out of this case was the Durham Standard or the Product Test. This stated that an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect. Finally they discussed the Hinckley Case. What was the important outcome of this case was that instead of the defense required to prove their client is insane the burden was no on the prosecution.

I think the most surprising thing to me about the chapter was the fact that there is a great difference in the legal and medical definitions of insanity. I just find It really shocking that someone who has been declared mentally ill by medical professionals can still looked at as not insane by the legal definitions the courts use.

After reading about Andrea Yates case and hearing what she was diagnosed with I wanted to learn more about it. I was really concerned with how often it occurs and if it was a common thing. She was diagnosed with postpartum mental illness. I found a very helpful and insightful website that gave a lot of information on this mental illness. From reading this website I found it has to do with depression and anxiety. In her specific case is comes from her giving birth to her children. I found out from the website that it occurs with about 80% of new mothers. So it defiantly seems as if this is a pretty common disorder.

http://www.nmha.org/go/postpartum

Chapter 9: Insanity Defense

Before reading this chapter, I had a bit of knowledge about the insanity defense because of other courses that I have taken. Abnormal Psychology here at UNI taught me a bit about the insanity defense in the sense that insanity is actually a legal term; not a psychological term. Many defendants through the years have tried to use the insanity defense in order to avoid the death penalty, get a lesser sentence, or even get off of their charges scotch free. In order for the insanity defense to be used, the defendant has to have not known the difference between right and wrong AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME. This is a very important part of the insanity defense. If someone wants to plea insane because the crimes that they have committed have drove them into insanity AFTER they were committed, the insanity defense cannot be plead. For example, if a defendant kills someone and they feel extreme remorse after and have reoccurring unpleasant thoughts because of what they did, but they did not feel this feelings before or at the time of the crime, the insanity defense will not hold up in court. Also, if the defendant committed the crime because they were under the influence of a foreign substance, for example Alcohol or narcotics, they may not use the insanity defense. I also learned that using the insanity defense can be more trouble for the defendant than what it be if he/she just did their time in jail. For example, I learned about a man who shoplifted in Florida and used the insanity defense and ended up being cured. He was not allowed to leave the mental hospital after he was cured and spent more time there cured than what he would have if he would have just did the 1 year in prison.

The chapter covers the same issues. Just like I stated earlier, the insanity is referring to the state of mental capacity at the time of the crime. The defendant must have a mens rea, which is latin for “guilty mind”. This is exactly what I said earlier, meaning that the person must know right from wrong at the time of the crime.

One very interesting issue found in the Hot Topic box on page 188 was the issue of mothers killing their children. The question was how common was it for a mother to kill their children. Well, there is a condition that almost 50 to 75 percent of women suffer from called postpartum depression. Postpartum depression comes from the hormonal change after pregnancy. This can lead to crying, loss of pleasure, sleeping difficulties, and even suicidal/homicidal thoughts. Postpartum psychosis is when a mother starts hearing voices, having delusions, and also suicidal/homicidal thoughts. This is much less common than what postpartum depression is. This disorder usually shows up in the first 90 days after pregnancy.

The chapter also discusses three important cases in which the insanity defense was used. The first case was the case in which Daniel Mnaghten tried to shoot and kill the prime minister of England because he thought that the government was plotting against him. He instead shot and killed the prime minister’s secretary. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity and spent the rest of his life in an insane asylum. The next case was the durham case in which Monte Durahm was not allowed to use the insanity defense while being prosecuted for breaking and entering an apartment. The last case discussed was the Hinckley case in wihc John Hinckley shot and wounded President Ronald Reagan. In this particular case, the burden of proof was placed on the prosecution, and not the defense. After this, I learned that a defendant can actually be “guilty but mentally ill.” They can be held accountable, but only to a certain extent.

Here is an article that I found that says that the insanity defense differs from state to state. It says that someone who is insane is not able to have willful intent, as someone must have in order to be held accountable for their actions.

http://crime.about.com/od/issues/a/insanity.htm

Here is an acticle that I found on Malingering, which was discussed in the chapter. This is where someone fakes a mental disorder or symtoms for some kind of gain. This article talks about if it can be detected. This is actually considered by the DSM-IV to be a mental disorder.

http://www.medleague.com/Articles/medical_topics/detecting_malingering.htm

Read Ch 9 in C&K.

What was your level of knowledge about the insanity defense prior to reading this chapter? How is that different now? What was the most surprising thing you learned in this chapter? Now, choose one topic that you learned about in this chapter, and go out in the internet world and find out more about that topic/case/etc. Discuss what you found and provide your link(s).

Prior to reading this chapter, my level of knowledge about the insanity defense consisted of knowing about the NGRI verdict and its proponents, and the respect to which expert witnesses are used--though I did not know they could not state their personal opinion, probably because of media portrayals.

My level of knowledge is different now in that it has expanded to include different definitions of insanity throughout the history of the judicial system, the "guilty but mentally ill" verdict and where it has been legalized, the different tests that are used for assessing insanity, and the differing degrees of the perp's mental awareness and whether or not they had the capacity (at the time of the crime) to form specific intent.

The most surprising thing I learned from this chapter was that Judges and not psychiatrists and psychologists (people whom I believe are more versed in the are of mental illnesses) decide what the legal definition of insanity should be.

Something that I was interested in learning more about was the statistic of people caught "...exaggerating psychological problems so that the trier of fact might find a defendant insane". I found a case where a perp was, "...bragging to everyone he will beat this on an insanity defense,'' Schirro wrote. He also said Zarate, now 21, was seeking the advice of an inmate who was a doctor about using an insanity defense." Though I could not find any research on people proven to have not actually been insane if found to be so. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/inmantes_say_man_charged_with.html

Before reading this chapter I only had a general knowledge about the insanity defense, which I learned mostly from movies. I always figured criminals only used the plea to get out the charges they have committed, and I saw the insanity plea as almost a way to let the criminal off, now I know this is not true. I thought the insanity plea was used more often and more successful than it actually is. I didn't know that when a person is declared not guilty with reason of insanity they actually spend the rest of their life incarcenated still it just might not be in prison. I thought it was the same as being declared not guilty. This chapter really helped broaden my knowledge about insanity defense.

There are many things I know to be different after reading this chapter. First I think everyone should understand the difference between insanity and competence. Insanity is the criminal's state of mind at the time the crime was committed whereas competency is the criminal's state of mind at the time of the trial. This is why many attroneys use clinical psychologists during trials to state their professional opinion about the defendent's mental state. This was shown in the case of Andrea Yates who murdered her five children because she thought she was saving them from the devil. She was eventually found not guilty by reason of insanity, but she is spending the rest of her life in a mental health institute. Here she can receive the proper help she needs to help with her postpartum mental illnes (postpartum depression). Cases dealing with insanity need to look at the proper retribution, which becomes more difficult if the prepetrator did not fully understand the consequences of his actions. Then there is also detterence, which is that an offender and other similar individuals needs to be punished for a crime so they know committing crimes WILL lead to punishment. This is why insanity defense is so complicated to handle. Definitons used to determine insanity is whether or not the criminal knew what he was doing was wrong(mens rea) while he/she was actually committing the crime(actus reus). Insanity defense has been used in court cases for centuries, and is slowly evolving to be more fit for today's society. A few examples of this include: M'Naughten rule, cognitive test, irrestible impulse, volitional capacity, policeman at the elbow test, ALI standard, burden of proof, and etc. After all of these were put in force, in 1984 the Insanity Defense Reform Act was put into use. The court systems have also added guilty but mentally ill, which is used to simply skip over the definition of insanity. In some jurisdictions where insanity is not allowed, defendents may plea a Mens rea defense. This can only be used in certain cases, and when it is the prosecution has to make sure the can prove it beyond resonable doubt. To determine insanity different tests are used. These include: R-CRAS, IDA-R, or MSE.

What I found most surprising in this chapter was that the insanity defense is only actually used in one percent of all felony cases. Then when it is used it fails about 75 percent of the time. I honestly thought the insanity defense was used all the time by criminals before reading this chapter.

What I wanted to learn more about from this chapter was the Twinkie Defense, named after Dan White's court case. I had never heard of it, but I found it to be quite interesting. As explained in the book it is when the mental state is impaired be depression because of the high intake of junk food. What I found from research is the Twinkie Defense was widely thought of in our country more than it should be. In Dan's case the food he ate played a minor role in the defense's actual case. They relied more on the concept of diminished capacity, which was the main reason he was charged with voluntary manslaughter. The article said the media blew the whole thing out of proportion.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/23/INGRE343501.DTL&ao=all