
John Hinckley shocked the world when he attempted to murder President Ronald Reagan in 1981. The more surprising element occurred when he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. An obsession with guns and the actress Jodi Foster made it obvious that Hinckley was mentally ill. However, he was released from the mental institution where he was committed post-trial in 2016 after his condition improved (Jacewicz). The Hinckley case raised questions on the insanity defense, criminal responsibility and mental illness. But are the mentally ill actually responsible in situations like Hinckley’s? The insanity defense attempts to determine the answer to this query, by allowing the mentally ill defendant a chance to pursue treatment for their illness, rather than incarceration. Like most controversial topics though, it has been a topic of debate for decades. Although critics claim it should be abolished, the insanity defense is a crucial legal tool that validates mental illness and gives defendants a realistic standard to be judged on. Thus, it should not be eliminated but rather be altered to a universal Substantial Capacity test to create an efficient judicial process.  

Although the insanity defense was created hundreds of years ago, it is much different now. The plea has evolved, developing multiple tests to determine a defendant’s mental state and causing a system that is far from uniform. It is because of these tests that it should be changed. The University of Minnesota Libraries clearly explains each of the different insanity tests, noting that the defense is not even admissible in Idaho, Kansas, Montana and Utah. Despite differences, each test has a basis that requires the defendant to have a mental illness. The M’Naughten test, founded in 1843, bases its results on cognition, meaning it judges a person’s awareness of the “nature and quality of the criminal act or that the act was wrong.” The Irresistible Impulse Test deals with an individual’s awareness of their ability to resist an action. The Durham Insanity Defense states that an individual is not responsible for their action if it resulted from their mental illness. Lastly, the Substantial Capacity Test, which is used by almost half of states in the US, requires a person to be unaware of the crime they committed and that their actions violated the law in order for them to be exempt of responsibility (“6.1 The Insanity Defense”). This test analyzes the defendant’s true intention behind the crime, meaning it decides if they were truly trying to commit the act. In addition, it evaluates their awareness of what is expected of them as citizens because it requires them to know that the act was illegal. Although these tests seem similar, they are different as they lead to different outcomes for the defendant using them. The University of Minnesota Libraries points out this contrast by giving an example where a woman diagnosed with psychosis puts a love potion, made of her antidepressants, into a man’s drink. When he drinks it, she tells him what she did and that she knew she shouldn’t have done it. If the M’Naughten insanity test was used to prove her mental state “her statement ‘I know I shouldn’t have’ could prove her awareness that her conduct was wrong, defeating her claim. But if she used the Substantial Capacity test, her statement proves that she was unaware that her act was unlawful, thus her mental state would not be proficient for the court (“6.1 The Insanity Defense”). The inconsistent results of the insanity defense, caused by the varying tests used in states across the country, allude to its complexity; a complexity that should be resolved by agreeing on one test, the Substantial Capacity test, because it has explicit requirements that no other test has. Therefore, using it for all trials involving mental illness will ensure defendants receive the most just trial. 

Critics of the insanity test claim it should be eliminated from the legal system. However, their argument revolves around weak points. Typically, after a successful insanity plea, the next step is to have the individual placed in a mental institution, either automatically or by requesting that the court recommend the person for commitment based on requirements in the Mental Health Code (Weiner, 1066). The opposition argues against the insanity defense because of what occurs during this process. It is argued that it can be difficult to prove an individual’s need for commitment to a mental institution because of diminished symptoms at the time of the trial (Weiner, 1068). However, this is a defective claim because the defendant’s insanity would have already been proven at this point during the case. Thus, it is redundant to have another trial, meaning this aspect can simply be altered rather than removing the defense. In addition, those against the plea claim that although it attempts to protect the mentally ill, it puts the public in danger. In cases where the defendant is released after trial or commitment to an institution fails, they fall prone to the “revolving door syndrome” of stabilization, refusal to take medication and recommitment to a hospital (Weiner, 1069-1070). There is no doubt that this may be an issue for some criminals that are released, as this cyclical nature is common with mental illness, and it is true that they could commit a crime again. However, eliminating the defense will not resolve this problem. This reasoning says more about the aftercare for the defendant and nothing about an issue with the insanity defense. Perhaps the focus should be on the treatment and follow-up for mental illnesses rather than absolving the insanity plea. Eliminating it would only lead them to wrongly suffer in prison for a crime they unintentionally committed without receiving much needed treatment. The reasons against the defense are not strong enough to abolish it. In fact, they are only helpful in displaying the need for the plea to be altered. 

To know why the insanity defense must be changed, it is important to first understand why it is needed. Its importance is found in the heart of what mental illness is. The National Institutes of Health defines mental illness as “a health condition that changes a person's thinking, feelings, or behavior (or all three) and that causes the person distress and difficulty in functioning,” (“Information about Mental Illness and the Brain”). The important piece to understand is that mental disorders are real sicknesses that have real effects. It is nothing to fear, but it is something to take seriously and recognize so it can be effectively maintained or treated. The insanity case accomplishes this task by analyzing a defendant’s mental state, recognizing that their brain does not work the same as a healthy person’s. Continuing this idea, there are dozens of mental illnesses, each with their own impacts. For example, the National Institutes of Health describes symptoms of schizophrenia, including disorganized speech and hallucinations (“Information about Mental Illness and the Brain”). While this is only one extreme example of mental illness, it is still proves that mental illness causes life-altering effects on someone. Mental illness takes over the brain and causes it to work abnormally, which explains how a mentally ill person can get into an unlawful situation. The insanity defense is crucial in situations like this because it protects the individual from a crime they could not help to commit. Furthermore, when questions arise about blame with crimes caused by the mentally ill, the insanity plea is necessary. Knowing that mental illness originates in the brain, causing unwanted symptoms that cannot be prevented, it is obvious why it must continue to be used. Stephen Morse and Richard Bonnie point out this aspect when they say, “…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,” (“Abolition of the Insanity Test Violates Due Process” 489). With the knowledge that mentally ill persons should not be held responsible for their acts, the plea gives them a true model to be judged against. Because their brain works differently, their acts cannot be analyzed to the same standard as someone who’s judgement was mentally sound. Abolishing this plea is not worth losing sight of truth in the legal system. The insanity defense is an appropriate response to crimes committed by those who suffer from a disorder. It recognizes the effects mental illness has on the brain that can result in a wrongful act. It is an important piece of the judicial system that brings awareness to the reality of mental illness thus providing for a fair trial as well. 

To better understand the insanity defense, and its diversity, it is helpful to compare its use in the Hinckley case to another event. James Holmes, the shooter of the Aurora, Colorado killings, had a normal childhood that transformed into a dark adult life after his illness developed. Contrastingly, even after being diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, the court found him to be sane when he violently shot at a movie theatre crowd. Now he is being reviewed for sentencing (O’Neill). Despite Holmes’ diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, the jury still decided he had the mental capacity and awareness that should’ve stopped him from committing murder. This case shows that the plea is not guaranteed to succeed just because someone has a mental illness. A combination of different mental illnesses, situations, and tests used can be the reason for the contrasting verdicts seen with the Hinckley and Holmes cases. This inconsistency would cause frustration for supporters and protestors of the plea. It is impossible to change the mental illness or eliminate the possibility of crime. Therefore, changing the defense is the only way to create consistency in this realm of the legal world. 

In order to make the insanity defense the most efficient and impartial process, it must be condensed to one test across the nation. It is worth mentioning that it would be difficult to resolve due to an extensive political process that would result. However, that does not mean it is not needed or impossible to accomplish. The plea was meant to defend the mentally ill. The best chance at achieving this goal is to have a more uniform system. Aside from being charged for a crime caused by their unintentional disorder, the success of their verdict is based on the state they are tried in. Rather than eliminating the defense, it would be beneficial to use one test among states. The Substantial Capacity test would be the best because it is specific by encompassing more requirements to include a variety of circumstances. Making this the universal test would ensure for a more effective defense for the mentally ill because it gives them the same opportunities in trial no matter where it occurs. With one test, it helps to diminish questions regarding the process that can arise from a verdict that is controversial. Whether this change can happen or not, it does not take away from the fact that the insanity defense is needed and should remain a part of the legal system. 

Through its awareness of mental illness and creation of a fair legal process, it is obvious that the insanity defense should remain an option for those facing criminal trials. However, it should be altered to only involve the Substantial Capacity test because its extensive requirements answer questions of mental stability explicitly. Nonetheless, the insanity defense debate is important because it brings much needed awareness to the justice system and mental illness. As the public questions this plea, they are inevitably learning about the way the courts work and what is required to obtain certain verdicts. With the possibility of cases like the Holmes and Hinckley trials occurring at any time, it is beneficial for others to know how the system works. Understanding the way mental illness is handled in the legal system opens the conversation of how it should be dealt with in society. There is no doubt that a stigma around mental illness exists, but pretending mental disorders are false diseases will not make them disappear. Accepting this defense is the first step to accepting mental illness and welcoming those who struggle with one. There will always be situations and people we cannot change; so, we may as well accept them as they are. 
