Introduction
Insanity defense refers to a strategy that is rarely utilized in the courts as a defense. In many states in the US, the defense is usually unsuccessful in many courts. States are grouped into three major categories as regards the use of the insanity defense. One of the categories includes those states that invoke the M’Naghten rule of law while another category includes those that utilize the American Law Institute model. Other states do not utilize the insanity defense at all. It is established through research that the use of the defense affects the outcome of the ruling. It is always expected that different defense laws would have a marginal impact on the case under arbitration. It is claimed that people with mental problems are forced to commit crimes due to the disease they suffer from. The court is forced to evaluate the behavior of the accused from a different perspective. However, the public is not always happy about the application of the insanity defense. This paper analyzes the use of the insanity defense in Los Angeles. Los Angeles is found in the larger California state meaning that the laws of the state are utilized in arbitration. In the United States, California is one of the states that influence the laws of the entire country.
Application of Insanity Defense in Los Angeles
Before understanding the use of insanity defense, its brief history should be given. The Hebrews first used insanity defense in jurisdictions. Greeks, including Plato and Aristotle, later developed the insanity defense in their writings. The defense was based on men’s rea, popularly referred to as the guilty mind. This determined whether an individual was healthy enough to meet the requirements of criminal responsibility. It was determined that an individual could only bear criminal responsibility if he or she is found with a guilty act, otherwise referred to as actus reus. However, the insanity defense is different because the guilty act is not always considered. It is a matter of whether the defendant was aware of the crime. In Los Angeles, M’Naghten rule of law has been in operation since the 19th century, even though there have been some variations (Wrightsman, Greene, Nietzel, & Fortune, 2002). In 1978, the suggestion to switch from the use of M’Natghten rule of law to the American Law Institute test was given by Justice Tobriner. He suggested that California had utilized the M’Naghten rule of law for a long time in defining cases related to insanity and idiocy. In his opinion, the use of insanity was inadequate as far as the interpretation of cases was concerned. The judge noted that the American Law Institute test was modern and it could interpret all cases related to insanity. The suggestion was given in a ruling involving the people and Drew (People v. Drew). In 1982, the people of California objected to the new policy and voted overwhelmingly to restore the M’Naghten rule of law.
Legislators passed proposition 8, which added section twenty to the California Penal Code. The code automatically restored the M’Naghten rule of law. In the new policy, two prongs were included, which include the act prong and the wrongfulness prong. The issue of voluntary intoxication, which is part of the insanity defense, has also been addressed in Los Angeles. Some individuals might be forced to use drugs when they suffer from psychological disorders such as schizophrenia. In a court of law, such an individual would invoke the insanity defense given the fact that he or she might have acted under the influence of an illicit drug. The case involving the people and Robinson (People v. Robinson) was the first to shed light on the matter. In the case, the jury ruled that an individual is considered insane when the drug he or she uses could have affected his or her reasoning. However, the defense does not hold when the only reason for committing a crime is the use of drugs (Olin, 2002).
Apart from the issues related to drugs and addiction, an issue touching on the aspect of knowing the right thing and something wrong is also of the essence when applying the insanity defense. In this regard, the law in Los Angeles separates morality from something legal. Something morally wrong might be legally right while another thing that might be considered legally right might be morally wrong. For instance, an individual might commit murder using the name of God. Even though an individual knows that killing is wrong, he may commit it because the victim could have gone against the principles of God. In this regard, the honesty of the defendant must replicate the generally established moral or ethical beliefs derived from a perpetual force (Huss, 2009). This means that a defendant cannot just use any set of beliefs to commit a crime. In other words, his or her sets of beliefs must be in line with those of the entire society. The case involving the people and Coddington (People v. Coddington) serves as an example. The defendant was convicted for committing first-degree murders in various places. The defendant was found guilty of murdering the two girls, raping them forcibly, committing an act of oral copulation, and penetrating the girls forcefully. Evidence was given suggesting that the accused had rejected the normal religion of society and instead he had resorted to a cult system (Gorr, 2000). The court considered the accused sane because he knew the teachings of the main religion yet he refused to follow them. For insanity defense to be accepted as a legal defense, the moral standards of the accused must be much with those of the jury and the entire society.
In a different case involving the People and Severance (People v. Severance), the court refused to rule in favor of the accused on claims of insanity. The defendant had been convicted for committing a series of second-degree robberies, with various weapons. The court of appeal observed that the accused could not be released on insanity claims because he failed to provide enough evidence to ascertain a sensible conclusion that based on his psychological infection, he was unable to differentiate right from wrong. The accused denied that he did not commit the first robbery. When asked about the second and the third robberies, he claimed that Satan influenced him since he had become suspicious and schizophrenic.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that Los Angeles is one of the few jurisdictions that utilize the insanity defense as a legal defense. However, the defense is used under special circumstances. Many people have failed to convince the court using the defense because of the issue of morality. For the court to accept the insanity defense, the actions of the accused must match with those of the society, as well as the judge. In other words, the sets of beliefs of the accused must be in line with those of society for the defense to be applied in court.
References
Gorr, M., (2000). The morality of plea-bargaining. Social Theory and Practice, Tallahassee, 26(1), 1-19
Huss, M. T. (2009). Forensic Psychology: Research, Clinical Practice, and Applications. Blackwell:Wiley.
Olin, D., (2002). Plea bargain. New York Times Magazine, 29(1), 1-22.
Wrightsman, L., Greene, E., Nietzel, M., & Fortune, W. (2002). Psychology and the Legal System. New York: Wadsworth.