Is insanity a legit defense?

[JustGotOut]

Lets think about ourselves for a second when we are psychotic or if we deal with psychosis on a daily basis. Would any of us really kill someone? I doubt it. If I hadn't dealt with psychosis myself I wouldn't think that someone who goes psychotic and kills someone and pleads insanity as the reason is legit. But dealing with psychosis over the years even to the extremes of it with delusions etc. I just believe pleading insanity is bs and that people are responsible for their actions including murder. Now I did do some things like lick windows in the psych ward that I obviously wouldn't do if sane but it doesn't seem like killing someone would happen because of my insanity. I doubt anyone here would kill someone too even if psychotic. But I could be wrong and insanity is a legit reason to kill someone i dunno.

[jt07]

From what I understand, it's not enough to be psychotic or otherwise mentally ill for the insanity defense. You have to be so far gone that it is impossible for you to know right from wrong. It is a VERY difficult standard to meet, and that's why the insanity defense is rarely successful.

[JustGotOut]

1 hour ago, jt07 said:

From what I understand, it's not enough to be psychotic or otherwise mentally ill for the insanity defense. You have to be so far gone that it is impossible for you to know right from wrong. It is a VERY difficult standard to meet, and that's why the insanity defense is rarely successful.

Ah okay, when I was delusional I thought well i'm delusional so I can just kill someone I don't like and get away with it. But obviously never did it I was just angry. But interesting to know its not a get out of jail free card.

Edited February 21, 2017 by JustGotOut

[notloki]

It varies by court. Here are some guides from http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/insanity-defense.html

 

Quote

How Courts Test for Legal Insanity

Depending on the jurisdiction, courts use one or a combination of the following tests for legal insanity:

• The "M'Naghten Rule" - Defendant either did not understand what he or she did, or failed to distinguish right from wrong, because of a "disease of mind."
• The "Irresistible Impulse" Test - As a result of a mental disease, defendant was unable to control his impulses, which led to a criminal act.
• The "Durham Rule" - Regardless of clinical diagnosis, defendant's "mental defect" resulted in a criminal act.
• The "Model Penal Code" Test for Legal Insanity - Because of a diagnosed mental defect, defendant either failed to understand the criminality of his acts, or was unable to act within the confines of the law.

 

[Wooster]

In addition, if one attempts and successfully pleads not guilty by reason of insanity, they may still be "remanded to custodial treatment until such time as they are able to recognize the nature of the crime."

Again, in the US this depends on the state where one is tried.

[heilmania]

Yeah, you have to be totally off your rocker for that to work. 

AKA, don't try this at home, kiddos. 

[helenllama]

In Scotland the insanity defence can lead to a guilty verdict of "Culpable Homicide due to diminished responsibility" (manslaughter) so not everywhere has the insanity defence being met and being found not guilty. 

[dancesintherain]

In nearly all (all?) it's a partial reduction as woo mentioned...you get the acquittal of sorts, but then you get committed to the nearest psych ward indefinitely (subject to periodic review by an administrative law judge or magistrate judge).  it's not to say you'd never get out, but the periodic reviews require some convincing that it's not going to happen again essentially and then are usually progressive in nature.

that's to the degree there's anything uniform.  the real answer matches the "it's left to the states" which is that it varies a lot.  it's mostly a defense of last resort because of how infrequently it succeeds and how bad the consequences can be.

[dazed and confused]

From what I understand mental illnesses such as schizophrenia the defendant can use the insanity defense but only if they were having an episode at the time. Just because the defendant has schizophrenia (for example) doesn't mean they can use it as an excuse. It's based on their frame of mind at the time. Someone who has schizophrenia but is stable on medication who goes out and murders someone is going to be judged differently to someone else who also has schizophrenia who commits murder because they believe they are receiving command hallucinations from aliens that to save the world they must kill certain people. I think they look at motive, frame of mind, etc. From what I've heard I think psychosis is the only illness where you can use the insanity defense because when you are psychotic you have "lost your mind" and are not in control of your thoughts and actions. It's why psychopaths like Ted Bundy receive the death penalty because even though people like him are 'deranged,' from a psychiatric point of view they know exactly what they are doing as opposed to someone like Andrea Yates who was psychotic at the time and was unaware of her actions. 

Also, those who use the insanity defense have to prove that they really were insane at the time and if they are found not guilty due to reasons of insanity they have to keep that up, not easy to do if you aren't really insane. But if they are found not guilty because of insanity it's usually with diminished responsibility, which means that their guilt is lessened but it's not completely diminished. As in you aren't to blame for being psychotic but it was your responsibility to take your medication. The defendant has to take some responsibility for their treatment and anything that happens because they refused treatment.