In today’s society, there are many crazy and insane people, and nobody knows why they do what they do. However, in such cases where there are criminal effects, the legal action becomes extremely hard to distinguish between those who are severely mentally ill and those who are faking it. The court's decision involves many factors that have accumulated over the years including, whether or not the defendant suffered from a delusion before or during the act, the disease or disorder the defendant suffers from, and how the court system can determine sufficient legal action.
Mental health defense has become more increasingly aware as our society has pushed towards significant mental health screening. Thus mental health defense, although infrequently used in the past, has become more frequently successful. Our society pushes to lock away those who propose a threat, such as those who are severely mentally ill or completely sane. However if you can treat and even cure these people of being criminals, penology favors such action. Processes used to punish such cynical people can also be used to prevent the mentally ill from causing further damage to society. Many mental illness cases continually argue that without this defense, it violates there right to due process. Because of this evaluation, defendants can be found guilty but insane if the defendant was not aware of his or her actions before or during the crime. Without this key concept, many cases would be found guilty, thus receiving no treatment necessary to become a productive member of society. This treatment within a hospital creates an environment suitable for the patient as well as prevents them from being confined within a prison (Johnston) (Fogel).
Although the insanity defense is widely used in popular media and literature, such defense only presents itself in less than one percent of criminal cases, moreover, it succeeds in an even fewer statistic. Many individuals believe that although the individual is pleading not guilty by reason of insanity, the individual is receiving no punishment. However, in almost every case the exonerate is still secured behind closed doors in various mental health facilities. All persons involved in mental health defenses are kept under a close eye and depending on the state, this could mean that they are commanded under a specific authority or a group of mental health doctors. What many individuals do not understand is that the defendants who present this defense, most normally spend a larger quantity of time in these facilities compared to time spent in a normal prison. This time spent not only allows the individuals to receive the treatment and care they need but also prevents them from walking back into society as the same person they were before their sentence (Doherty).
However rare this defense is, our society views it as a means of escaping punishment, however, because it creates legal drama, it is most often used in cases in which the defendant commits a crime of deep controversy. Thus raising questions about whether or not the person should be granted a mental illness defense. If the defendant exhibits a specific moral compass as well as self-determination, the defense has a legal opportunity for the defendant to seek needed help. In most recent years state standards have changed as society does as well. In 2006 a supreme court case known as Clark v. Arizona, revolutionized insanity defense as we know it. This case was increasingly monumental because the court decided that the legal system does not always have to follow what the doctors declare. This is because although the case was specific to the defendant's judgment, it was declared through a legal manner that he was not, in fact, insane, but instead trying to cover his tracks. Although this case was monumental every case is specific to a jury’s judgment as well as the doctor’s honorable opinion. In 1984 the Insanity Defense Reform Act was initiated changing the federal law as we know it. Almost fifty percent of states in the U.S. changed their insanity standards because of the M'Naghten ruling, however, for those who refused to change, a previous consideration to earlier mental illness cases allowed them to see that mental illness reform was entirely necessary. These federal reforms set a standard code of conduct for many insanity defense cases. However although these cases were presented more often, because of the reform, these cases needed to be revealed as severe (Doherty) (Johnston).
Dating back as far as 1505, the responsibility of mental illness defendants removed legal action of certain mental states. Meaning if a defendant justified their action for a mental illness defense, it was the court's legal responsibility to provide the defendant the specific treatment required to allow them to access back into society. Nowadays, various laws and regulations have been put into place to weed out the rightfully acquitted versus those trying to escape harsh punishment. The first case received was the M’Naghten rule, in which a man tried to kill the prime minister but instead shot his secretary. This man was acquitted of his crimes because he was not held legally responsible for his actions. This hearing created a precedent for many other cases worldwide, as it had never been clearly notified that a person could be acquitted of their crimes because they were not aware of the reason for the crimes. This precedent created two specific case defenses, the defect of reason and disease of the mind. Both allowing a mentally unstable person to seek treatment for their crimes as well as be kept from societal norms (Doherty).
Many components play into a mental illness defense but most importantly it is that the defendant receives a just trial and legal action. Many forms of law such as Anglo-American and Sporadic Insanity Law influence the way in which a successful legal trial performs in court. The Anglo-American law favors a much more legal form of action based on law and regulation, however, Sporadic-Insanity Law specifically targets the defendant's mental status and rights within a court system. Another factor that plays a key role in mental illness defense is the medical tests applicable to the defendant. Many tests such as the depressive test and polarizing test determine the mental status of a defendant in a legal yet modern way. Depressive tests determine whether or not the person suffers from mental illnesses such as depression schizophrenia and over-compulsive disorder (OCD), however, polarizing tests determine whether a person suffers from a general anxiety disorder or bipolar disorder. Depressive tests are more significant in court as they provide more evidence for the medical perception of insanity (Johnston).
Conclusions based on mental illness defense are extremely important in the justification of the defendant's actions. However, there are many factors that play in a court's decision, such as whether or not the defendant suffered from a delusion before or during the act, what the defendant suffers from, and how the court system finally determines sufficient legal action. All of these factors change the life of the defendant whether it be treatment in a mental health institute, sentencing in prison, or acquitment of their criminal actions