The insanity defense is a controversial topic, but it only seems to be brought up when there is a defendant in a major case trying to use it. The media broadcasts these cases, which in turn causes public outrage against the insanity plea. Because of this, the public tends to have a tainted view on what the insanity plea really entails. Although the media has not been giving out false information, it has not necessarily been spreading the truth. Contrary to what many believe, the insanity plea is beneficial for this country's criminal justice system. Even though the media will not quit delivering stories that readers desire, it is imperative that the media includes the facts concerning the insanity plea. Not only does this affect the public, but it also affects those who are truly mentally ill. To fix the public misconception about the insanity plea, the media must include facts about the insanity plea that will show the public how necessary it really is, not publish stories until they know all of the facts, and depict mentally ill persons in television and movies correctly and accurately.  

Initially, it can be proven that the media has had a direct correlation with how the public views the insanity plea. When the term "media" is used, that refers to not only news sources but also television and movies. A study explained in Scott Elmore's dissertation titled The Insanity Defense: Public Opinion and the Public's Tendency to Implicate Mental Illness in High-Profile Crimes finds that 17% of characters in all American television shows were mentally ill, and 73% of those characters were violent. This means that, according to American television shows, mentally ill persons commit 33.9% of the violent crimes that occur each year (Elmore, The Insanity Defense: Public Opinion ... ). Since there is such a large amount of violent mentally ill characters in television shows, it is easier to understand why the public has such a negative correlation with mentally ill persons. Other mediums of media  --  such as newspapers, magazines, etc.  --  also depict the mentally ill in a negative aspect. Journalists tend to feed readers what they want and make it seem as if it is completely true, which is defined as, "'infotainment' ... the portrayal of crime and justice is blurred ... the most serious and violent crimes are given an entertaining angle and presented as 'hard' news, even though the facts are often distorted or misrepresented" (Elmore, The Insanity Defense: Public Opinion ... ). 

The media tends to release stories that they know will cause an emotion of some sort and will draw readers to their story. For example, James Holmes, the Colorado movie theater shooter, pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity in 2013, and the judge accepted his plea (7 NEWS  --  The Denver Channel, Aurora Theater Shooting: Insanity Plea Accepted). As shown in the video, the public is outraged that this could happen. However, the news video fails to mention that even though Holmes can now plead insane, that does not mean that he will win the case. Two years later, when the trial takes place, Holmes is deemed "psychotic" and "schizophrenic" (Koerner, Insanity Defense Begins in Colorado Theater Shooting Trial). The video fails to mention any reason as to why Holmes could possibly be pleading insanity and instead interviews victims to cause the audience to feel emotionally against the insanity plea. In a separate case in Chicago, a news outlet publishes a story stating that, "a man accused of stabbing a Vernon Hills woman more than 20 times outside a northwest suburban movie theater in January may argue insanity as his defense in the case ... " (Abderholden, Insanity Defense May Be Used in Movie Theater Stabbing). The problem with this news story is that the journalist wrote and published it too early. There was not enough information to make a factual story, proving that this is more of an "infotainment" story (Elmore, The Insanity Defense: Public Opinion ... ). Holmes' insanity plea trial was fresh in everyone's minds during the time that this news story was written, so this media platform decided to publish this story even though it was not concluded whether or not the defendant would definitely plea insanity to invoke emotion in readers. One last example of "infotainment" (Elmore, The Insanity Defense: Public Opinion) is a news story written by Fox News stating that a man charged with murder is pleading insanity (Associated Press, Ex-Coast Guardsman Charged in Killing Plans Insanity Defense). Much like the previous example, this news coverage does not have any facts pertaining to the man's mental health, which does not help the public in determining whether or not this man is truly insane. The media does not take into account the fact that they are not showing the complete truth regarding the insanity plea. 

There are multiple facts about the insanity plea that the media does not inform the public about. One fact that is rarely mentioned is that the insanity plea is not brought up that often, and defendants are found not guilty by reason of insanity even less often. As mentioned previously, American television portrays mentally ill persons committing 33.9% of all of America's yearly violent crimes when in reality it is only a mere 1.5-3.65% (Elmore, The Insanity Defense: Public Opinion ... ). Of the 1.5-3.65% of mentally ill offenders who commit violent crimes, only, "about one percent of [defendants] invoke the defense" (Law.Jrank, Insanity Defense  --  Is there a Need for the Insanity Defense?). The media also prints stories of defendants using the insanity plea every chance that they get, which causes the public to believe that the insanity plea is used a lot more often than it is. In reality, it is extremely difficult for a defendant to prove that he or she did not know that he or she committed a crime. The insanity plea is also rarely used and rarely successful because the jury tends to be negatively biased against the insanity plea (Puschat, Evan, Does Pleading Insanity Work?). All in all, it takes an intensive amount of convincing from the defendant in order for him or her to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. 

Another fact about the insanity plea that is misconstrued is that most cases that result in an insanity plea are not murder cases. In fact, "slightly less than one-third of the successful insanity pleas entered over an eight year period were reached in cases involving a victim's death" (Perlin, The Insanity Defense: Nine Myths that Will Not Go Away). However, the media allows the public to believe differently. Every story involving the insanity defense being implicated involves violence of some sort. It is a well-known fact that reports of violent crime create a bigger audience, so "[the] strongest predictor of whether or not a story was reported and its prominence was the number of victims murdered ... [and] more articles were written about homicides involving innocent victims" (qtd. in Elmore, The Insanity Defense: Public Opinion ... ). The public backlash against the insanity plea derives from media coverage of violent offenders trying to use the insanity plea, when in actuality, "60 to 70% of insanity pleas are for crimes other than murder" (Law.Jrank, Insanity Defense  --  Is There a Need for the Insanity Defense?). 

However, since the media has played a significant role in influencing the public's opinion about the insanity plea, there are people who believe that the insanity plea should be abolished for the betterment of society. Stephen C. Rathke argues that one reason as to why the insanity defense should be abolished is so that mentally ill patients are treated fairly (Rathke, Abolition of the Mental Illness Defense). Rathke states that mentally ill offenders are still labeled by the public as villains. Unlike mentally sane offenders, mentally ill offenders also have the label of being insane, and he believes this can be avoided by eradicating the insanity defense (Rathke, Abolition of the Mental Illness Defense). However, without the insanity defense, offenders who are desperately in need of help that a mental hospital can provide will not get that help. Instead, those offenders will go to prison, later be released, and will eventually commit another crime due to his or her mental state, and the process will repeat itself. Prisons do not contain the necessary treatments that mentally ill offenders need in order to prevent recidivism, or the continuation of crimes after being released (Harrison, Idaho's Abolition of the Insanity Defense). For this reason, it is imperative that the insanity defense exists in order for mentally ill offenders to receive help that a mental hospital can provide, and thus prevent recidivism. 

The point mentioned previously also provides a counterargument against Rathke's claim that society would be much safer without the insanity plea by stating that there is not a specific amount of time that the mentally ill offender will be locked up for (Rathke, Abolition of the Mental Illness Defense). However, one needs to think of mentally ill offenders in mental hospitals having the same rights as mentally sane offenders in prison. Mentally sane offenders are offered parole when they exhibit good behavior. Because of this, it makes sense that if a mentally ill person is exhibiting positive behavior, then he or she should be able to get out at a time that the hospital believes is correct. The difference between prisons and mental hospitals is that, "prisons release mentally insane criminals when their sentences are up, whether or not they still pose a threat to society" (Harrison, Idaho's Abolition of the Insanity Defense) and "psychiatric institutions do not release mentally insane criminals until they demonstrate they are no longer a threat to society" (Harrison, Idaho's Abolition of the Insanity Defense) which could be at an earlier date or a later date than expected.

Rathke also argues that those in a higher class are able to convince the court that they are mentally ill when in reality they are not because they are incredibly educated and can afford experts who will help convince the jury that they are insane (Rathke, Abolition of the Mental Illness Defense). Although this is a common perception and the media portrays this perception by constantly showing stories about violent offenders and the insanity plea, Rathke's statement is false. As mentioned previously, the insanity defense is rarely used (Morse, Stephen J. and Richard J. Bonnie, Abolition of the Insanity Defense Violates Due Process) and it is extremely risky for a legally sane person to try and say that he or she is legally insane. Not only is the jury hesitant to find someone not guilty by reason of insanity, but, "experts using the proper diagnostic tools can reliably distinguish people who are faking major mental disorder" (Morse, Stephen J. and Richard J. Bonnie, Abolition of the Insanity Defense Violates Due Process). Because of this, if one is found faking insanity, then he or she will receive a longer sentence than he or she received in the first place (L.Jrank, The Insanity Defense  --  Is There a Need for the Insanity Defense?)

Mens Rea is a common term in the criminal justice system that concerns criminal intent, which means that, "an act may be criminal, but without a criminal intent, the defendant has committed no crime" (Stern, The Heart of Mens Rea and the Insanity of Psychopaths). In order for someone to be found guilty of murder, he or she must have exhibited mens rea when the action occurred. In certain, but not all, cases involving mentally ill offenders mens rea is present but he or she is obviously not guilty by reason of insanity. However, sense mens rea is present and the mentally ill offender intended to kill, he or she is found guilty and does not receive the help that he or she needs. For example, John Joseph Delling was a paranoid schizophrenic and, "believed that his victims were stealing his essence by shrinking his brain and that he had to kill them to save his life. He carefully planned the killings and succeeded" (Morse, Stephen J. and Richard J. Bonnie, Abolition of the Insanity Defense Violates Due Process). Since the murders were devised beforehand, mens rea was present with Delling's case. This case occurred in Idaho, which eradicated the insanity defense and proposed a defense that allows mentally ill offenders to prove their insanity by "[introducing] evidence of mental disorder solely for the purpose of negating the mens rea required by the definition of the crime charged" (Morse, Stephen J. and Richard J. Bonnie, Abolition of the Insanity Defense Violates Due Process). Since Delling acquired mens rea, he was unable to prove that he was insane in court and was therefore found guilty. Although the judge realized that Delling was insane, there was no insanity defense since mens rea was present, and Delling was found guilty (Morse, Stephen J. and Richard J. Bonnie, Abolition of the Insanity Defense Violates Due Process). 

Idaho's use of the insanity plea is unfair and thus violates due process because, "the crimes of legally insane offenders arise from a lack of understanding produced by severe mental abnormality and thus they do not reflect culpable personal qualities and actions (Morse, Stephen J. and Richard J. Bonnie, Abolition of the Insanity Defense Violates Due Process). Moreover, this goes back to what was previously mentioned about rehabilitation. Delling will not be getting the mental help that he needs in a prison, and if he were ever to be released he would still be a threat to society, and quite possibly a bigger threat than he was before (Harrison, Idaho's Abolition of the Insanity Defense). Rathke's statement about ensuring public safety by eradicating the insanity defense is incorrect because of this (Rathke, Abolition of the Mental Illness Defense). If public safety is a concern, then the insanity defense should definitely be implemented. 

To recapitulate, the media's portrayal of the insanity plea has caused there to be a negative and incorrect connotation surrounding it. Because of this negative connotation, it has also caused danger for not only the public but also mentally ill offenders themselves. The insanity defense is rarely used, but when it is the media exemplifies it to the extreme. Also, television and movies have not played a good role in portraying the mentally ill. The mentally ill are seen as more dangerous than they actually are. The public misconception has caused some states to abolish the insanity plea completely, which in turn causes mentally insane people to go to prison instead of rehabilitation hospitals. When the mentally insane person is released from prison, he or she is not better and will commit another crime. Sometimes placing a mentally insane person in prison will make his or her decision even worse than it was before. All in all, it is important to realize that the insanity defense was created in order to protect defendants who are not responsible for their actions, which in turn protects the public. The media can fix the common misconceptions that the public has by including facts about the insanity plea in their articles, representing mentally ill persons correctly on television and in movies, and should wait until they receive all of the facts regarding a case before they publish a story about it. 

