Research Paper on "Texas Insanity Defense M'naghten's Rule"

Research Paper 5 pages (1637 words) Sources: 5

[EXCERPT] . . . .

insanity defense in the United States is seldom raised but when it is raised it is not fully understood. The insanity defense is incorporated into the American justice system that is based on an adversarial system that is concerned with determining a winner and loser. Against such a background, obtaining a determination as to the mental health of the defendant in a thorough and unbiased method is difficult.

Historically, the insanity defense has been narrowing in scope. One of the best examples of this narrowing involves the application of the insanity standard under Texas law. It is arguable that the present application of the insanity defense in Texas bears no relationship to modern understandings of what constitutes serious mental illness. Despite significant advances in the area of psychiatry and psychology, the legal system in Texas has changed its laws relative to the insanity very little over the years and, as a result, the defense has become virtually useless as a viable defense even for those who are severely psychotic.

The Texas insanity defense is a slight variation on the old M'Naghten test which was first applied in England in 1843 (Clark v. Arizona, 2006). The standard is codified in section 8.01 of the Texas Penal Code. It has been briefly described as the "severe mental disease or defect" defense. The case giving rise to the M'Naghten test occurred in England and involved the murder of a prominent Englishman. The defendant in the case was Daniel M'Naghten who it was shown at trial suffered from what today would be described as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The jury in the M'Naghten case found the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity which resulted in large scale public outrage. In response to the public outrage Queen Victoria requested Parliament and the members of the Queen's Bench to revise the insanity defense. The result was what became to be known as the M'Naghten test. The initial language of the M'Naghten test stated: "at the time of the committing of the act, the party 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 he was doing what was wrong." In simplest terms, the M'Naghten test became a question of whether or not the defendant knew the difference between right and wrong at the time of the offense.

Early in its legal history the State of Texas adopted the M'Naghten test as its standard for determining sanity but in the early 1970s Texas added another provision to the test that broadened the M'Naghten test briefly. The Texas legislature, however, took action in 1983 to narrow the scope of the insanity defense so that Texas today has one of the nation's narrowest interpretations of what constitutes legal insanity. There was an attempt to completely revamp the Texas insanity standards in 2005 but the decision was ultimately made to maintain the M'Naghten standard that had been used in Texas since its entry into the Union.

Because of the narrow standards set forth in the M'Naghten test, the number of individuals in Texas found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity is quite small (Kari & Associates, 1994). The ultimate result is that individuals who suffer from serious mental illness who need hospitalization and long-term psychiatric treatment are subject to convictions and long-term incarceration.

The narrowness of the present Texas standard requires a reexamination by the Texas legislature. The standard that exists now focusing on the defendant's cognitive capacity is far too limiting and fails to aid the criminal justice system in identifying defendants who suffer from acute symptoms of serious mental illness. Presently, the only individuals who can effectively utilize the insanity defense in Texas are those who cannot determine right from wrong. The result is that a defendant in Texas only rarely effectively asserts an insanity defense in Texas. If defendants know that their conduct is prohibited by law, or wrong in a legal sense, they are considered sane under Texas law. Rare indeed is the defendant, regardless of how mentally ill he may be, that does not understand that his acts are illegal.

How Texas should change its insanity defense is subject to intellectual speculation and discussion. There are many alternatives available and with the improvements in psychiatric diagnosis it is time that Texas begins incorporating these new diagnostic techniques and procedures into its insanity defense determinations.

The most obvious change in the insanity standard in Texas is the adding of some form of volitional prong to the present limited M'Naghten test (English, 1988). For a short time in the mid-1970s through the early 1980s Texas had included a volitional prong but it was quickly abandoned by the legislature in 1983. The fact that there was no major explosion in insanity defense acquittals during this period when a volitional prong was added should serve to allay the fears of those who forecast such an explosion. Not including one, however, serves to disallow the insanity defense for those who are legitimately insane. Such disallowance is morally reprehensible and results in incarcerating individuals who would be better served receiving treatment and not suffering the indignities of incarceration.

Another anomaly in the Texas law regarding the use of the insanity defense that demands change is the fact that under existing law the jury is not instructed regarding what the consequences of an insanity verdict might be (State Bar Committee, 2010). Texas law prohibits the jury being advised of what the possible consequences of a not guilty by reason of insanity might be. This provision is arguably fundamentally unfair. Juries are empowered in Texas to render a verdict sentencing a defendant to death but cannot be entrusted with the knowledge of what the consequences of an insanity might be? Such a position is not logical.

Not allowing the jurors to know about the consequences of a not guilty by reason of insanity defense is unfair to any defendant intending to utilize the insanity defense. Not having such information may cause a juror to draw the conclusion that the defendant, if found not guilty by reason of insanity, will walk free. Under Texas law, this would not be the case. The defendant would be required to endure lengthy hospitalization under strict security. Not allowing jurors to have this information, at hand, likely results in defendants being afforded the full range of their rights. The Texas Mental Health Association and the American Bar Association both have encouraged that the Texas legislature amend the law regarding not instructing juries regarding the consequences of not guilty by reason of insanity finding but, to date, the Texas legislature has not followed either organization's recommendations.

The law in Texas regarding the use of the insanity defense is archaic and reflective of a much earlier time (Dix, 2005). When the present standard was formulated, attitudes toward mental illness and the supporting science relative to diagnosis and treatment were remarkably different. Mental health has progressed and so should the legal communities' method of recognizing its affects and results. Defendants who are truly mentally ill should not be subject to the same set of sanctions that a mentally competent person faces (Bard, 2005). As the law regarding the insanity defense presently exists in Texas, mentally ill defendants and their counsel are fighting an uphill battle that is most likely to end in failure. Over the years only a handful of defendants have been able to successfully establish an insanity defense and, as a result, the Texas prisons are full of individuals who are truly mentally ill. These individuals cause severe management problems for prison officials and may have a strong argument that they are being subject to cruel… READ MORE

How to Reference "Texas Insanity Defense M'naghten's Rule" Research Paper in a Bibliography

Related Research Papers:

Insanity Defense and the Unabomber Trial Term Paper

Insanity Defense and the Unabomber Trial

The Insanity Defense: Crazy or Not?

The article "The Insanity Defense and the Unabomber Trial" by Barbara Sarason of the University of Washington touches… read more

Term Paper 2 pages (704 words) Sources: 1+ Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

Andrea Yates Insanity Defense Term Paper

Andrea Yates Insanity Defense

Insanity Defense: The Andrea Yates Case

Case Summary

Born on July 2, 1964, she had a normal childhood and was the picture of success. Andrea Yates… read more

Term Paper 5 pages (1476 words) Sources: 3 Style: APA Topic: Psychology / Behavior / Psychiatry

---

Judicial Process: The Insanity Defense Since 1724 Essay

Judicial Process: The Insanity Defense

Since 1724, there have been records of the insanity defense being used in trials. Before that time, there was no difference in the eyes of… read more

Essay 8 pages (2832 words) Sources: 8 Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

Defenses to Criminal Liability Term Paper

Defenses to Criminal Liability

Explain the difference between the defenses of justification and excuses to criminal liability

According to Article 35 of the New York State Law Penal Code, and… read more

Term Paper 4 pages (1443 words) Sources: 2 Style: APA Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

Insanity Defense IFP Week 5 WA Term Paper

Insanity Defense

IFP WEEK 5 WA

Insanity case study

The federal definition of insanity is considerably more stringent and considerably more difficult for a defendant to use than that of… read more

Term Paper 2 pages (768 words) Sources: 2 Topic: Psychology / Behavior / Psychiatry

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>