Madness, A Form Of Judicial Defense

Madness is the general term for mental disorder and it includes anxious disorders, disposition disorders such as schizophrenia, and personality disorders. A great dispute goes on for centuries regarding the controversial problem of madness in court. How should the law treat a person who is mentally disordered and who commits a penal act? Should people with troubled minds be held responsible for their acts? Scientists in the social and judicial field have tried to bring a balanced response to this matter.

For the past centuries, a big part of the western jurisdiction was represented by the concept that a civilized society must not punish a person that is incapable of controlling his impulses - that is of course from the judicial point of view.

In 1794, a British law-court sustained the idea that a man is not responsible for an act if he doesn't know what he is doing, "not more than the savage animals". Nevertheless, the modern standards of legal responsibility are based on M' Naghten's decision, no. 1843. This rule states that a defendant can be considered innocent due to his madness only if he was so severely affected in that time that he had not been aware of what he was doing , or if he knew what he was doing he was not aware that it was a wrong thing to do. This rule had been adopted in the USA and the distinction between good and wrong had been the foundation for the majority of the decisions concerning judicial irresponsibility for almost a century. Some states have added the doctrine of the "irresistible impulse". By this it was stated the fact that some individuals might answer correctly when they are asked whether an act is good or wrong from the moral point of view, but they also might have been incapable of controlling their behavior at the crime time.

Furthermore, in the year 1970, a series of states and federal courts adopted " The Rule Of The American Institute of Law". This rule contained a new judicial definition of madness, which was more permissive. The content of the definition can be summarized by the idea that not every incapacity can eliminate responsibility. If an individual knows what he was doing but he doesn't understand it, he cannot appreciate whether it was right or wrong, in this case he cannot be considered guilty and responsible for the act.

This controversy became more and more important after John Hinckley Junior was discharged due to a mental illness, even though he was one of those who tried to kill the American president Reagan in 1981. A great number of Americans were furious and very much against this decision as they believed that judicial irresponsibility is just an excuse for many guilty people to escape punishment. This reaction lead to the Act of Reform of Defense, 1984, which contains a number of stipulations meant to make the defendant's absolution of the judicial responsibility more difficult. This act stated the fact that the psychological disorder must be severe and by this were excluded the non-psychotic disorders such as anti-social personality.

Another clarification was inserted in the law concerning this problem in the last decade, about a new type of verdict: "guilty, but mentally insane". This verdict was proposed by the state of Michigan and it was adopted by another 11 states. In some of these states the verdict replaced the verdict of "innocent due to mental illness", and in other states it is just an additional opinion. "Guilty but mentally insane" permits the jury to convict a person they consider dangerous, trying in the same time to help that person get a proper treatment for his disorder.

In conclusion, madness is synonymous to judicial irresponsibility but the verdict is the one to make the difference. Some agree that mental illness should draw a "innocent" verdict but the majority believe that a mad person is dangerous for the society and even though he is considered irresponsible for his acts, he still needs to be separated from society and receive special treatment. This option is believed to be the one that gratifies society, the defendant's relatives and even himself, because it offers the opportunity to get treatment, healing and restoration therefore it eventually gives him a better chance to reinstate in the society.