Insanity, an Idea for the Courts
By Madelyn Einck
On June 20, 2001, Andrea Yates drowned her five young children, aged as old as seven years and as young as six months, after calling her husband to come home. Yates suffered from major depressive disorder and severe postpartum psychosis and claimed that she was “saving” her children. After first being convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison, Yates was allowed a retrial that committed her to Kerrville State Hospital when she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. This case became a classic example of the insanity defense, where a defendant is found unable to fully understand what they did was wrong because of a physical and/or mental limitation. A successful insanity defense results in the defendant not being legally punished for their crime. While insanity defense is related to mental illness, it is important to note that insanity is a legal term, not a psychological term. Being diagnosed with a mental illness does not automatically mean that a defendant would be considered ‘insane’ in a court of law.
“Insanity” refers to the idea that a person who has no criminal intent for their actions or no understanding of right and wrong cannot be found guilty of committing a crime. For example, if a person leaves a candle unattended under an open window and the curtains catch fire after being blown into the flames, the person cannot be declared guilty of arson because there was no intent to cause harm. The same can be found for cases of mental or physical diseases or defects that severely diminish a person’s moral reasoning at the time of the act. When assessing insanity, forensic psychologists and psychiatrists have to consider what the defendant was thinking at the time of the crime itself.
The insanity defense differs greatly from the concept of legal competency to stand trial. Competency or incompetency refers to the defendant’s current understanding, or the lack thereof, of the legal process in his or her case, as well as the ability to reasonably communicate with an attorney or legal official. In many cases, a defendant declared incompetent due to mental illness will spend time in a rehabilitation facility until competency is restored before his or her case proceeds. If a defendant is declared incompetent to stand trial, the insanity defense cannot be tried.
In cases with a potential for a plea of insanity, courts use various tests to determine a legal insanity defense. One test, the “M’Naughten Rule,” follows under the notion that the defendant had no understanding of their actions or an understanding that their actions were wrong because of a mental illness. Another test, the “Irresistible Impulse” Test, focuses on the defendant’s lack of impulse control due to a mental illness. Additionally, the “Durham Rule” focuses on the defendant’s mental illness deriving from the criminal act, despite a diagnosis. Lastly, the “Model Penal Code” Test states that a defendant did not act lawfully or have full understanding of the illegality of his actions, due to a mental illness. States differ on what test(s) are used in insanity defense cases and states like Idaho, Kansas, Montana, and Utah do not allow the insanity defense at all. If a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity, they are then assigned to a secure psychiatric institution, where they can be held until they are no longer considered a danger to society (and most often, they will be in this facility for longer than they would have been sentenced to prison if they had not used an insanity defense).
“Insanity” is difficult to declare because of its complex meanings. While there is an abundance of criminal cases proceeding every day, only about 1% try the insanity defense, with less than 25% of that small number having an outcome where the defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity. In the case of Andrea Yates, it was apparent her mental illness grew exponentially until she was so consumed that she committed a heinous crime. The insanity defense and the considerations that go into finding someone legally insane is just one of the many ways that psychological science intersects with our legal system.