Introduction
Trauma is often characterized by stressful events that cause one to battle challenges that may be psychological or mental. A traumatic experience involves a feeling of helplessness where one may choose to do an action that may not be justified in the criminal justice system and according to societal moral provisions. Most people who have had past trauma usually have the feeling that whatever they did was beyond their control and that they are aware but not responsible (Asokan, 2016). This paper presents a debate on whether or not crime or violence should be a justification due to past trauma.
Supporting the Argument that Past Trauma can Justify Crime or Violence
There is a relationship between past trauma, substance misuse, and violence, which may even result in death. For example, Howard et al. (2017) show that among the female population in prison, more than 97% have had what is referred to as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which is related to past actions that have a complex association between the trauma itself and criminal undertakings. Therefore, the article brings a sense that traumatic experiences may justify why crime sometimes ensues (Howard et al., 2016). While discussing this, it is important to say that people who have experienced advanced traumatic levels in their life, they tended to do wrong without differentiating between what is right or evil, for that matter.
There are various ways in which the legal processes can substantiate why people with past trauma may be acquitted due to legal insanity. Often, some questions may be asked for that matter. Such questions check if the defendant premeditated the crime and realized the risks such behavior would pose. Therefore, the two provisions usually work in some minimal cases. The video showed that only 1% of people arraigned in court pleaded insanity had driven them to cause crimes (NowThis World, 2015). Among the number, the likelihood of the case succeeding in their favor is only 25%, especially in the US (NowThis World, 2015). Therefore, it means those who get free from any offense after pleading insane must have legal factions that help them get out of the problem. It shows that trauma can be an excuse for why one committed violence, which supports the argument.
There are cases where notorious defendants successfully used insanity as their defense. For example, Anders Breivik was accused of shooting more than 77 people in Norway, many being young people. The prosecution called for an insanity ruling whereby the lawyers portrayed him as a madman rather than a political militant. The other famous case involved John Hinckley Jr., who successfully pleaded insane when he shot dead President Ronald Keagan (Cuadra et al., 2014). Additionally, a Chicago doctor named Lee Robin killed his wife and daughter in 1998, and he was ultimately not found guilty as the reason given was that he was insane (Felson & Lane, 2009). a trio of mental health personnel concluded he was psychologically ill to understand the extent of his actions.
Supporting the Argument Past Trauma Should not be Justification for Crime
There are also other arguments that trauma should not be presented as the driver of crime and violence instances. It is essential to stress that if people were to give trauma as the excuse for why they committed a crime, the world would be full of injustices because 70% of people undergo trauma at their point in life (Leisring & Grigorian, 2016). According to the legal factions presented in most of the courts, trauma should not be an excuse to fail to take responsibility. Judges have often been hesitant to free defendants under this paraphernalia, basing that trauma should leave the aspect of sense in heavy matters such as death and long-term impacts. In 2018 Will Smith said that “it’s not your fault if your partner cheated and ruined your marriage, but it is for damn sure your responsibility to figure out how to take that pain and how to overcome that and build a happy life for yourself” (Pariseau, 2021). Therefore, it means that despite all the challenges that may prob one to commit a crime, there is the liberty to critically analyze the matter in terms of results and impact caused by the act.
Some people who committed murder have attempted to excuse themselves by saying they were insane. For example, Eddie Ray, who killed Chris Kyle, tried to follow this legal opportunity, but the judges deemed him sane during the murder (NowThis World, 2015). In the US courts, the burden of proof is only the accused, and the defendants must prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were mentally ill. However, most judges have highlighted that insanity does not work for murder cases, as if the person was mentally ill, the chances of arriving at the scene of the crime would be minimal (Stacer & Solinas-Saunders, 2017). Thus, it is hard to prove insanity, and they plead on the same may not work as an excuse for one to be acquitted of charges against them in criminal law.
My Stance
According to my understanding, the judicial system does not allow trauma to justify violence and crime. Therefore, my stance is that trauma should not justify any crime or violence in the community. I say this because I believe that justice for all should be equal and given by the extent of the matter. Due to the interest I have for equality injustice; I cannot support people who kill others to be acquitted; hence walk free while some families suffer somewhere due to the loss of their loved ones. Insanity may drive one to choose to kill, but the instances that facilitate the killing may not be possible when one is not sane (Ternes et al., 2019). For example, a point where one time well to shoot a person at a given time and range in an event may not resemble any act of insanity. The reason is that trauma is a development that comes due to mental issues, which can be corrected.
To uphold my stance, it is important to consider all sides of the matter. Although there is a high number of people often discovered to have PSTD, acquitting them from criminal charges would yield to a culture where people can justify their violence as long as they have the expertise and knowledge power to defend themselves (Pariseau, 2021). In my opinion, when one suffers from trauma, they are supposed to seek psychological attention that should help them combat the situation. If one disregards their situation, then it becomes their fault that they have not solved the problem in due time. Indeed, from the readings, it is harder to prove insanity than to prove sanity. When someone is given a chance to use insanity plead concerning their act of violence or crime, these people may tend to act from ignorance when they know it shall be justifiable (Howard et al., 2016). Therefore, justifying crime based on past trauma can be harmful in society which has many people who use impunity to find their way out of the challenges they face in life.
As many courts have not always found the presentation of PTSD testimony relevant, the accused people must be held responsible for their actions regardless of the state of their minds. I support the United States Vs. Cope in the 2008 Federal case where the defendant was sentenced accordingly for the charges tabled against him (Howard et al., 2016). It was inconsequential for the military officer to think that serving in Vietnam and the case of PTSD may have prevented his sentence.
My take on that case is that the judges did the right job as otherwise, that would have been termed as impunity in the society for people who have special power in the government (Pariseau, 2021). I will express my thought that even people who have adverse traumatic experiences have to take responsibility for their actions for a peaceful society. The matter is indeed a contentious issue in the twilight. Still, if the criminal justice system allows individuals to defend themselves based on insanity, it means the general population will be relatively immune to criminal charges due to the lawful provision to give excuses about insanity or other trauma-centric issues.
References
Asokan, T. (2016). The insanity defence: Related issues. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 58(6), 191. Web.
Cuadra, L., Jaffe, A., Thomas, R., & DiLillo, D. (2014). Child maltreatment and adult criminal behaviour: Does criminal thinking explain the association? Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(8), 1399-1408. Web.
Felson, R., & Lane, K. (2009). Social learning, sexual and physical abuse, and adult crime. Aggressive Behavior, 35(6), 489-501. Web.
Howard, R., Karatzias, T., Power, K., & Mahoney, A. (2016). Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms mediate the relationship between substance misuse and violent offending among female prisoners. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 52(1), 21-25. Web.
Leisring, P., & Grigorian, H. (2016). Self-defence, retaliation, and gender: Clarifying motivations for physical partner violence. Journal Of Family Violence, 31(8), 949-953. Web.
NowThis World. (2015). Does pleading insanity work? (Video). Web.
Pariseau, A. (2021). 3 Things your trauma is not an excuse for. Web.
Stacer, M., & Solinas-Saunders, M. (2017). Criminal thinking among men beginning a batterer intervention program: The relevance of military background. Journal Of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 27(2), 199-219. Web.
Ternes, M., Cooper, B., & Griesel, D. (2019). The Perpetration of violence and the experience of trauma: Exploring predictors of PTSD symptoms in male violent offenders. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 19(1), 68-83. Web.