Melissa Maitland
Professor Hubert
American Government
23 November 2015

Where Does the Law Stop For years the insanity defense has turned into a difficult defense system in the court of law. The exact law changes from state to state, but the main idea remains the same. The insanity defense could apply and be used on an individual who is considered legally insane. The individual must have a severe mental disease or defect, their lawyer must prove that they were at the time of the crime. We need to abolish the insanity plea and make the death penalty the law of the land again. An individual accused of a crime can pled guilty that they committed the crime, or argue that they are not responsible for it because of a mental illness. “Not guilty by reason of insanity.” There’s an important distinction between pleading guilty by reason of insanity and diminished capacity. Diminished capacity is pleading to a lesser crime. Pleading insanity is a full defense to a crime, it’s equivalent to pleading “not guilty.” The insanity defense is a compromise on part of society and the law. Society believes that criminals should be punished for the crimes they committed and society believe that people who are ill should receive treatment for their illness. When we talk about the insanity defense, we go to the M'Naghten rule.
The M'Naghten rule is the required test that must be given before the jury can decide whether the individual on trial knew that he or she could not tell right from wrong. This is the first famous legal test for insanity. In 1843, Englishman Daniel M’Naghten shot and killed the secretary of the British Prime Minister. M’Naghten believed that the Prime Minister was conspiring against him. The court ruled M'Naghten not guilty “by reason of insanity,” then he was placed in a mental institution. This case caused a public uproar, because of this Queen Victoria ordered to develop a stricter test for insanity. The M’Naghten rule became a standard to be applied to the juries. They were to hear the medical testimony from both the prosecution and defense experts. The defense has to prove “at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.” (Law, 3) This rule became the standard for insanity in the U.S. this is still the standard in almost half of the states.
The Durham Rule was named after Monte Durham. He was a man in and out of prison and mental institutions since he was a 17 year old. Durham’s attorneys failed to prove he did not know the difference between right and wrong, the federal judge decided to use this case to reform the M'Naghten rule. The judge cited psychiatrist’s and jurists to state that the M'Naghten rule was based on an “an entirely obsolete and misleading conception of the nature of insanity.” The judge decided to overturn Durham’s conviction and establish a new rule. This rule states that “an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease.” (West 1) The Durham Rule require the jury to determine if the accused was suffered from a mental illness and there was a relationship between the disease and the act. The Durham was actually rejected by the federal courts, it was too vague.
In 1972, the American Law Institute, a panel of legal experts, decided to develop a new rule for insanity as part of the Model Penal Code. It states “A defendant is not responsible for criminal conduct where (S)he, as a result of mental disease or defect, did not possess substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.” (Columbia Court 471) This is vague just like the Durham Rule; it leave factors up to the jury. The jury determines after give facts of the case and testimonies of experts. Half of our United States have adopted this code anyway, for a rule for insanity.
In 1984 the United States congress passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, backed by President Ronald Reagan signature. This act means the insanity defense requires the defendant to prove by “clear and convincing evidence that at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts.” (18 U.S.C. Article 17) This is viewed as a return to “knowing right from wrong” standard. The Act also contains the Insanity Defense. 18 U.S.C. 4241 - Reform Act of 1984 sets out a the sentencing
Some believe that there are individuals who can distinguish between good and evil but still cannot control their behavior. Others believe that the abolition of the insanity defense is immoral and leaves no alternative for those who are unaware and responsible for their actions. Tremendous amounts of controversy and criticism surround the issue of the insanity defense. One reason the insanity plea should be abolished is that it imposes a threat on the safety of the innocent and sane American public. A large number of Americans feel that the insanity plea should be erased or altered to protect their own safety. One idea would be to prevent the use of the insanity plea when more extreme cases such as murder are on trial. Using the insanity plea in a murder case and getting away with it shakes the security of the American people. No one wants to know a murder who had left the mental institution after pleading mentally insane would be walking shoulder to shoulder with them, or someone they loved out on the streets. This is great fear behind the insanity defense because many non-guilty verdicts have set the violent offender free and he committed another violent crime.
The first example of the insanity plea was Daniel Sickles. He was a New York politician and Civil War Union General. He shot and killed Philip Barton Key in Lafayette Park. Sickles thought that Key had an affair with Sickles wife Teresa. He had a public trial and claimed temporary insanity. He was acquitted of murder in 1859.
In 1981 Steven Steinberg was charged with killing his wife Elena. She was stabbed 26 times. To quote legal argument, “The defendant was not in his normal state of mind when he committed the act. Sleepwalking is a parasomnia manifested by automatism, as such, harmful actions committed while in this state cannot be blamed on the perpetrator.” (Yoong 3) Steinberg stated that he couldn’t remember the crime because he was sleeping. A.k.a. sleepwalking. The jury did not find him guilty on the ground that he actually was temporarily insane when he committed the crime.
Probably the most famous insanity case was in 1981, when John Hinckley Jr. tried to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. Hinckley's defense plea for insanity and succeeded. He was acquitted of all thirteen charges of assault, murder and weapon counts. The case was high-profile, and the public thought the charge of insanity was a loophole in the legal system which allowed a clearly guilty criminal dodge incarceration. Before this the two percent of felony cases used the insanity defense and seventy-five percent failed. Another famous insanity case was “Pogo the Clown.” In the 1970’s, John Wayne Gacy performed at parties and events, then he later raped and killed young boys and men. He lost count of how many victims he buried in a crawl space. His victims were murdered by means of asphyxiation by a tourniquet and not strangulation. He pleaded not guilty by insanity and produced psychiatric experts to testify for his case. These testimonies were rejected by the prosecution team due to the extensive measure Gacy took to avoid detection. His defense team then attempted to argue that all 33 murders were due to accidental erotic asphyxiation. This was quickly thrown out. Gacy was found guilty of every murder and sentenced to death by lethal injection.
Another high-profile case was of Chris Kyle, well known from his life movie. The American Sniper. After suffering from his own case of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Chris Kyle started helping former officers who returned from war. He was asked by the mother of Eddie Ray Routh to help him rehabilitate from the life of a soldier to the life of a citizen. Chris Kyle, Eddie Routh and another Marine went to the shooting range on February 2, 2013. Chris Kyle had been helping this Marine for two months prior to the shooting. Eddie Ray Routh pleaded that he was criminally insane. A jury listened to the lawyers and their mental health specialist and also to Mr. Routh. Mr. Routh defense was that he was have delusions when he shot Chris Kyle and the other marine. Prosecutors brought up that Mr. Routh was a heavy abuser of alcohol and marijuana. He in fact did not have PTSD, which everyone seems to believe. ““Evidence shows that there was a real definite pattern there, when it came to, you know, his earlier convictions,” another juror, Kristina Yager told ABC News. “He would get intoxicated, get in trouble, and then the police would show up, and he would say, “I’m a veteran, I have P.T.S.D., and I’m insane.’ You know, and every time something bad happened, he’d pull that card.” In October 2014, the prosecutors said that they would not seek the death penalty against Routh.
Historically the death sentence was often accompanied by torture, and executions in public. Thirty six countries practice capital punishment, and 103 countries have completely abolished it for all crimes. Only six have abolished it for ordinary crimes only, and only maintaining it for special circumstances like war crimes. Capital punishment was reserved for murder, espionage, treason, and part of military justice. In other countries rape, adultery, incest, and sodomy carry the death penalty. The reason for this is that the government wants to be as sure as possible that it does not execute an innocent person. Toward the end, much more of our money is spent on pre-trial preparation, more pre-trial motions, more expert witnesses, more attorneys, jury sequestration, security, and extra sentencing trial, and exhaustive appeals process. The Federal Bureau of Prisons was budgeted just $5 billion in 2013. Proponents of the death penalty say it is important law that helps preserve the law and order, it also deters crime and cost less than life imprisonment. Opponents say it does not deter on crime and wrongly gives government the power to take human life. Bruce Fein, General Counsel for the Center for Law and Accountability stated: “Abolitionists may contend that the death penalty is inherently immoral because governments should never take human life, no matter what the provocation. But that is an article of faith, not of fact, just like the opposite position held by abolitionist detractors, including myself… The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense, and thus subject even to butchery to satiate human gluttony. Moreover, capital punishment celebrates the dignity of the humans whose lives were ended by the defendant’s predation.”

A major argument for the death penalty is that it prevents future murders.
Punishment in society has been used to discourage “would-be” criminals from crime. To deter murder, the death penalty was created. If murders are sentenced to death and executed, “would-be” murders will retire before killing. In 1973, Isaac Ehrlich created a new kind of analysis for this. The results showed that for every inmate executed, seven lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder. If these studies are disregarded, it is only because the death penalty is rarely used. Americans could save millions and millions of dollars if we just put these criminals to death. They have a life sentence already, if they pled criminally insane there is no way they’re going to be reintroduced to society. A lethal injection would cost one-third the amount money than it would to keep 50 intimates living in a cell. When one takes a life, justice is disturbed. Retribution has it is basis in religious values, historically it is proper to take an “eye for an eye” and a life for a life. For cruel and heinous crimes, the offenders deserve the worst punishment under our system of law, which is Capital Punishment. Any lesser punishment would undermine the value society places on protecting the American lives. “In 1991, a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was then mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die.” (Macy 1) Another common argument for the death penalty is that the innocent will be killed. There is no proof that any innocent person has actually be executed since the safeguards and appeals were added to the death penalty system. The claims of innocence by those who have been released from death row are actually based on legal technicalities. Claims of innocence are usually just to delay and put off execution as long a possible. The death penalty is applied fairly and should be used more. Discretion is an essential part of the justice system. Every crime is unique, and both circumstances of each victim are different and each defendant is different. “The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a mandatory death penalty which applies to everyone convicted of first degree murder would be unconstitutional.” (Michigan State University 12) The death penalty is not applied just because of race, age, or anything. It is because of the crime and evidence. The guilty should be punished appropriately, and should apply to all killers. “May the punishment fit the crime?”
A desire for justice is an inherent quality of most humans. This prevents society from falling into chaos. It subjects the average, peaceful person to anger, violence, and madness of criminals. A society’s law and justice is dispensed by its hands. Society’s stability, fair and swift justice must always exist. So the complete removal of people who destroy society through crime is necessary. The death penalty serves this purpose. It ensure that a criminal can never harm another person again.
This country is billions dollars in debt, why keep digging ourselves in a hole and fix something. Yet as Christians we say no life is worth taking, this is not abortion. We should give them the option to repent and claim Jesus as their Savior and then send them on their way to heaven or hell. Whatever their fate is. The doctrines of the world’s majority religions have situations where the death penalty is not supported. Exodus 21:23-25 indications “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” Seeing a religious conservative's point of view, who are we to argue with the word of God?

Works Cited
“Chris Kyle Biography.” The Biography.com. A&E Television News, May-June 2014. Web.1 Nov. 2015.
District of Columbia Circuit's decision in the federal appellate case, United States v. Brawner, 471 F.2d 969 (1972).
Fein, Bruce. “Capital Punishment Essay – The Death Penalty;:” Capital Punishment Essay – The Death Penalty ;:.
General Counsel for the Center of Law and Accountability, 17 June 2008. Web. 01 Nov. 2015
“The M’Naghten Rule – FindLaw.” Findlaw. FindLaw, 13 June 2013. Web. 24 Oct. 2015
Tomasson, Robert E. “U.S. ATTORNEY SEEKS END OF INSANITY DEFENSE PLEA.” The New York Time. The New York Times, 06 Aug. 1982. Web 30 Oct 2015
Robert Macy, District Attorney of Oklahoma City
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.