Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 475–481 | Cite as

Neuroscience, Ethics and Legal Responsibility: The Problem of the Insanity Defense

Commentary on “The Ethics of Neuroscience and the Neuroscience of Ethics: A Phenomenological–Existential Approach”
  • Steven R. Smith
Commentary

Abstract

The insanity defense presents many difficult questions for the legal system. It attracts attention beyond its practical significance (it is seldom used successfully) because it goes to the heart of the concept of legal responsibility. “Not guilty by reason of insanity” generally requires that as a result of mental illness the defendant was unable to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the crime. The many difficult and complex questions presented by the insanity defense have led some in the legal community to hope that neuroscience might help resolve some of these problems, but that hope is not likely to be realized.

Keywords

Insanity defense Criminal responsibility Law NGRI (not guilty by reason of insanity) Responsibility and neuroscience Guilty but mentally ill Competency to stand trial Irresistible impulse Temporary insanity “Right from wrong” test 

References

  1. American Law Institute (1985). Model Penal Code, section 401.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (1983). Statement on the insanity defense. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140(6), 681–688.Google Scholar
  3. Blaustone, B. (2011). Improving clinical judgment in lawyering with multidisciplinary knowledge about brain function and human behavior: What should law students learn about human behavior for effective lawyering? University of Baltimore Law Review, 40(4), 607–647.Google Scholar
  4. Bloechl, A. L., Vitacco, M. J., Neumann, C. S., & Erickson, S. E. (2007). An empirical investigation of insanity defense attitudes: Exploring factors related to bias. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30(2), 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonnie, R. J. (2000). A case study in the insanity defense: The trial of John W. Hinkley, Jr. New York: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brookbanks, W. (2008). Neuroscience, “folk psychology”, and the future of criminal responsibility. New Zealand Law Review, 2008(4), 623–637.Google Scholar
  7. Caffrey, M. (2005). Comment: A new approach to insanity acquittee recidivism: Redefining the class of truly responsible recidivists. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154(399), 250–275.Google Scholar
  8. Callahan, L. A. (1991). The volume and characteristics of insanity defense pleas: An eight-state study. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry Law, 19(4), 331–337.Google Scholar
  9. Church, D. (2012). Neuroscience in the courtroom: An international concern. William and Mary Law Review, 53(5), 1825–1830.Google Scholar
  10. Compton, E. S. (2010). Not guilty by reason of neuroimaging: The need for cautionary jury instructions for neuroscience evidence in criminal trials. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 12(2), 333–354.Google Scholar
  11. Covey, R. D. (2011). Temporary insanity: The strange life and times of the perfect defense. Boston University Law Review, 91(5), 1597–1668.Google Scholar
  12. Danaher, J. (2011). The future of brain-based lie detection and the admissibility of scientific evidence. Irish Criminal Law Journal, 21(4), 99–108.Google Scholar
  13. Erickson, P. E. (2008). Crime, punishment, and mental illness: Law and the behavioral sciences in conflict. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ewing, C. P. (2008). Insanity: Murder, madness and the law. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Farahany, N. (2012). Incriminating thoughts. Stanford Law Review, 64(2), 351–358.Google Scholar
  16. Finkel, N. J. (2006). Emotions and culpability: How the law is at odds with psychology, jurors, and itself. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frost, C. J., & Lumia, A. R. (2012). The ethics of neuroscience and the neuroscience of ethics: A phenomenological–existential approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18 (this issue).Google Scholar
  18. Fruehwald, E. S. (2011). Law and human behavior: A study in behavioral biology, neuroscience, and the law. Lake Mary, FL: Vandeplas Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Gilles Phillips, J. K., & Woodman, R. E. (2008). The insanity of the means rea model: Due process and the abolition of the insanity defense. Pace Law Review, 28(3), 455–494.Google Scholar
  20. Goodenough, O. R., & Tucker, M. (2011). Neuroscience basics for lawyers. Mercer Law Review, 62(3), 945–958.Google Scholar
  21. Greely, H. T. (2008). Neuroscience and criminal justice: Not responsibility but treatment. University of Kansas Law Review, 56(5), 1103–1138.Google Scholar
  22. Greely, H. T. (2009). Law and the revolution in neuroscience: An early look at the field. Akron Law Review, 42(3), 687–715.Google Scholar
  23. Gundlach-Evans, A. D. (2006). The paradox of the insanity defense and guilty but mentally ill statute recognizing impairment without affording treatment. South Dakota Law Review, 51(1), 122–151.Google Scholar
  24. Hooper, J. F. (2006). The insanity defense: History and problems. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 25(2), 409–416.Google Scholar
  25. Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 17 (2011).Google Scholar
  26. Jones, O. D., Buckholtz, J. W., Schall, J. D., & Marois, R. (2009). Brain imaging for legal thinkers: A guide for the perplexed. Stanford Technology Law Review, 2009(5). http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/jones-brain-imaging.pdf. Last accessed 26 July 2012.
  27. Jones, O.D. & Shen, F. X. (2012). Law and neuroscience in the United States. In T.M. Spranger, (Ed.) International neurolaw: A comparative analysis (pp. 349–380). http://ssrn.coom/abstract_id+2001085. Last accessed 26 July 2012.
  28. Lamparello, A. (2011). Using cognitive neuroscience to predict future dangerousness. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 42(2), 481–539.Google Scholar
  29. Longtain, S. (2007). The twilight of competency and mental illness: A conciliatory conception of competency and insanity. Houston Law Review, 43(5), 1563–1596.Google Scholar
  30. Martell, D. (2009). Neuroscience and the law: Philosophical differences and practical restraints. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27(2), 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McGinley, W. H., & Pasewark, R. A. (1989). National survey of the frequency and success of the insanity plea and alternate pleas. Journal of Psychiatry Law, 17(2), 205–221.Google Scholar
  32. Miller, A. (1984). Quoted. American Bar Association Journal, 70(3), 44.Google Scholar
  33. Moreno, J. A. (2009). The future of neuroimaged lie detection and the law. Akron Law Review, 42(3), 717–737.Google Scholar
  34. Morse, S. J. (1994). Culpability and control. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 142(5), 1587–1660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Morse, S. J. (2008). Determinism and the death of folk psychology: Two challenges to responsibility from neuroscience. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 9(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
  36. Morse, S. J. (2010). Lost in translation? An essay on law and neuroscience. In M. Freeman (Ed.), Law and neuroscience: Current legal issues 2010 (Vol. 13, pp. 529–562). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Morse, S. J. (2011). Mental disorder and criminal law. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 101(3), 885–969.Google Scholar
  38. Palermo, G. B. (2010). Severe personality-disordered defendants and the insanity plea in the United States: A proposal for change. The Hague: Boom Juridische uitgevers.Google Scholar
  39. Palmer, C., & Hazelrigg, M. (2000). The guilty but mentally ill verdict: A review and conceptual analysis of intent and impact. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 28(1), 47–54.Google Scholar
  40. Pardo, M. S. (2006). Neuroscience evidence, legal culture, and criminal procedure. American Journal of Criminal Law, 33(3), 301–337.Google Scholar
  41. Pasewark, R., Randolph, R., & Bieber, S. (1984). (1984) Insanity plea: Statutory language and trial procedures. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 12, 399–422.Google Scholar
  42. Perlin, M. (1997). “The borderline which separated you from me”: The insanity defense, the authoritarian spirit, the fear of faking and the culture of punishment. Iowa Law Review, 82(1375), 93–138.Google Scholar
  43. Rauscher, C. J. (2011). “I did not want a mad dog released”—The results of imperfect ignorance: Lack of jury instructions regarding the consequences of an insanity verdict in State v. Okie. Maine Law Review, 63(2), 593–613.Google Scholar
  44. Sasso, P. (2009). Criminal responsibility in the age of “mind-reading”. American Criminal Law Review, 46(3), 1191–1244.Google Scholar
  45. Silva, J. A. (2009). Forensic psychiatry, neuroscience and the law. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 37(4), 489–502.Google Scholar
  46. Simon, R. (1967). The jury and the defense of insanity. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  47. Skeem, J. L., & Golding, S. L. (2001). Describing jurors’ personal conceptions of insanity and their relationship to case judgments. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 7(561), 178–222.Google Scholar
  48. Slobogin, C. (2006). Minding justice: Laws that deprive people with mental disability of life and liberty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Slovenko, R. (2002). Psychiatry in law/law in psychiatry. New York: Brunner-Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Smith, S. R., & Meyer, R. G. (1987). Law, behavior, and mental health: Policy and practice. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  51. The Insanity Defense Among the States (2012), available at http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html last visited July 27 2012 (an informal list of the insanity defense in every state).
  52. Vincent, N. A. (2010). On the relevance of neuroscience to criminal responsibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 4(1), 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Winslade, W. J., & Ross, J. W. (1983). The insanity plea: The uses and abuses of the insanity defense. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.California Western School of LawSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations