The accused, argued the lawyer, might carry a gene — like the men in the Dutch family — that predisposed him to violence. (The lawyer’s client was on trial for murder.) Therefore, went the argument, the accused did not have free will, was innocent of the murder and should be acquitted.
The defense, an attempt at legal trickery remarkable even for a lawyer, failed. However, scientific discoveries, particularly advances in neuroscience, are nevertheless having profound consequences for legal procedure.” (Wired News)
The article discusses the ‘insanity defense’, which has been based on 19th century science bearing on individual responsibility for one’s actions.
The insanity defense has fallen into disfavor because of the public perception that it is abused, especially since the acquittal of John Hinckley in his attempt to assassinate Ronald Reagan. But, as a neuroscience-grounded psychiatrist (it is forensic psychiatrists who evaluate and testify on the criminal responsibility of criminal suspects), I grapple with questions of whether my patients have the ability to conform themselves to standards of right and wrong all the time. I support a modern, scientifically-informed insanity defense as much as I decry its abuse as a slick defense tactic. Those who are legitimately not responsible for their actions are entitled to the defense and ought not to be penalized because others will misuse the insanity plea. On first blush, there is nothing special about the insanity plea in this regard. The burden of providing opportunities for justice inevitably leaves loopholes in many areas. The answer is to close the loopholes rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater. But there is something special about a plea of insanity, which is the public’s lack of understanding of the nature of mental illness (and, for that matter, of free will). In general, psychiatric disturbance is stigmatized and its bearer is seen as ‘bad rather than mad’. Much as there is a special burden on the court system not to err against suspects of color because of the historical reality of racism in our society, there ought to be a parallel burden not to err against mentally ill suspects.
Related:
How the Justice System Criminalizes Mental Illness — Brent Staples (New York Times op-ed)
And:
In a timely coincidence comes this story in which it is suggested that bizarre and dangerous behavior not otherwise easily understood (although not in this case direct violence towards others) may relate to the relapse of a disease process. (Yahoo! News)
