[bpcyclist]

Hey, guys. I have just finished writing a book about my time under a state forensic psych system. I am quite interested in any views or thoughts any of you h=might have about any aspect of the insanity defense. I have posted this here and on the bipolar board, since these two diagnoses make up most people who successfully assert this defense in the USA.

Many thanks for any and all input--greatly appreciated!!!!!!!!!1

[Erti]

The insanity defense is very hard verdict to plea. Even though they’re obviously out of their minds. Diagnosis or not.

[Sometimes psychotic]

I think you’re more likely to get out sooner if you don’t plead insanity...the conditions might be better too. Imo people who are insane should not be at fault if it’s a first episode of psychosis or they are taking meds regularly and they stop working suddenly. This of course isn’t how the legal system is set up.

[Job 30 26]

The insanity plea goes back millenniums. It's all over Greek tragedy. I think Kant would be a strong supporter of it. If one is taken out of the intelligible realm, where we humans use reason, then they are no longer free. Delusions detach us from the intelligible realm because our common sense reasons on how causation works is tainted by fear, paranoia even grandiosity, and the madness works on us as if we're puppets or pawns.

[SlumberKitty]

I don't think the insanity defense is very successful often--but I don't have data to back that up, just my own observations mostly from TV court shows. I think there should be an insanity defense because sometimes a person is not sane at the time of the crime and shouldn't be held liable (though maybe they should have to get treatment or something). I just think most of the time it doesn't work out well for the defendant.

[WastingAsparagus]

What I know about it is that the legal definition is different than the psychiatric definition (if there is a psychiatric definition of it at all). I know that if pleading the insanity defense, the defendant claims that he or she had little or no control over his or her behavior that led to or caused the alleged crime. People who use the insanity defense often claim that mens rea is impossible or unlikely to be proven. Mens rea, or a guilty mind, has to do with one's intention to commit a crime. Hence, the argument goes something like: if you cannot know that you are committing a crime, then you won't be able to prove mens rea because you don't have a state of mind that permits you to have the knowledge that you are committing a crime.

The other element of criminality is the actus reus. This has to do with the action that is prohibited.

I am not a lawyer, but I think it's probably equally hard to prove both mens rea and actus reus. But, if you cannot prove one or the other, then that will lead to the person not being convicted.


I think that the insanity defense mostly influences mens rea.

I think that either way, even if you get off because of the insanity defense, you are still liable to be committed to a mental institution for an indefinite period of time in a lot of cases. So it's not like pleading insanity is going to get you off lightly.

I am mostly looking at this from a philosophical perspective, as I wrote a paper on the insanity defense one time for a philosophy of law class.