March Post

Testifying toward the Insanity Defense

    In my debate elective, we had to write and give a speech on anything we want as long as it is persuasive. I decided I wanted to persuade to my audience, the class, that a psychiatrist/psychologist should always testify in both legal and psychological terms the mental health of the defendant when the "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense is used.

Here are some important parts of my speech:

The insanity defense is one of the most well known forms of defense used in entertainment. In actuality,"Not guilty by reason of insanity" is a special verdict of acquittal in a criminal trial. The verdict grants that, although the accused committed the act in question, he cannot be held legally responsible because he was not sane at the time of the crime. Defendants thus acquitted are then usually committed to a mental institution for an indeterminate period and released upon the recommendation of institution psychiatrists at such time the psychiatrists consider the person "sane." Since the insanity defense originated almost 200 years ago, definitions used to describe insanity have broadened, and new variations of the defense have been developed, giving criminals ever-increasing chances of escaping the legal consequences of their acts.

The "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI) verdict rests in part on two assumptions: that some mentally ill people cannot be deterred by the threat of punishment, and that treatment for the defendant is more likely to protect society than a jail term without treatment. It is important to note that "insanity" is a legal term, not a psychological one, and experts disagree whether it has valid psychological meaning.