Abstract
The insanity defense provides the possibility that a defendant who committed a crime is excused because of the presence of a mental illness at the time of the act. Typically, it is not just the presence of a mental disorder, but its specific influence that exculpates a defendant. Even though it may seem intuitive that, at least in some cases, a mental disorder excuses a person for criminal conduct, the insanity defense is one of the most debated topics in criminal law. In this chapter, we will consider the insanity defense by looking at some of the central issues under debate. These are, among others, the legal criteria for insanity, the reliability of insanity assessments, and the contribution of neuroscience to the assessments. As we will discuss, in many legal systems, the insanity criteria include both a knowledge/appreciation component and a control component. This means that the question basically is: did the defendant know that what he was doing was wrong and/or could he control his conduct? Regarding the reliability of the assessments, we address some of the specific challenges. In general, we argue, obtaining and corroborating evidence from different sources is crucial in forensic psychiatric assessments. Finally, in a limited number of cases neuroscience may be helpful to diagnose a disorder, in particular neurological disorders such as a brain tumor or dementia. If neuroimaging is being used, in principle, it is advisable to also perform a neuropsychological evaluation in order to relate imaging findings to cognitive functioning. It is good to keep in mind that a brain abnormality is not necessarily legally relevant.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
This approach has received criticism for being unfair.
- 3.
The apparent assumption in various Western legal systems that there is a special connection between being not responsible due to mental disorder and being dangerous is, at least to some extent, challenged in Bijlsma et al. (2019).
- 4.
On 22 July 2011, in Norway, Anders Breivik killed 77 people, many of whom were youths attending a summer camp. Initially, psychiatrists considered him psychotic and legally insane, but eventually the court considered him sane.
- 5.
See the English translation of the Breivik verdict Lovdata TOSLO-2011-188627-24E.
- 6.
M’Naghten’s Case, 10 Cl. & Fin. 200, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (H.L. 1843).
- 7.
Model Penal Code (American Law Institute 1985).
- 8.
See the English translation of the Breivik verdict Lovdata TOSLO-2011-188627-24E.
- 9.
Netherlands (1997). The Dutch penal code. Littleton, CO: F.B. Rothman. The American Series of Foreign Penal Codes. With adaptation because of a recent modification.
References
Appelbaum, P. S. (2008). Ethics and forensic psychiatry: Translating principles into practice. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 36(2), 195–200.
Bijlsma, J. (2016). Stoornis en strafuitsluiting. Wolf Legal Publishers.
Bijlsma, J., Kooijmans, T., de Jong, F., & Meynen, G. (2019). Legal insanity and risk: An international perspective on the justification of indeterminate preventive commitment. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 66, 101462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.101462
Bonnie, R. J. (1983). The moral basis of the insanity defense. American Bar Association Journal, 69(2), 194–197.
Dimock, S. (2011). What are Intoxicated Offenders Responsible for? The “Intoxication Defense” Reexamined. Criminal Law and Philosophy‚ 5, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-010-9097-2
de Kogel, C. H., & Westgeest, E. J. (2015). Neuroscientific and behavioral genetic information in criminal cases in the Netherlands. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 2(3), 580–605. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsv024
Gold, L. H., & Frierson, R. L. (Eds.). (2018). The American Psychiatric Association publishing textbook of forensic psychiatry (3rd ed.). American Psychiatric Association Publishing.
Gröning, L., Haukvik, U., Meynen, G., & Radovic, S. (2020). Constructing criminal insanity: The roles of Legislators, Judges and Experts in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. New Journal of European Criminal Law‚ 11(3), 390–410.
Linden, D. (2012). Overcoming self-report: Possibilities and limitations of brain imaging in psychiatry. In S. Richmond, G. Rees, & S. Edwards (Eds.), I know what you’re thinking: Brain imaging and mental privacy (pp. 123–135). Oxford University Press.
Løvlie, A. (2019). Criminal Insanity: Concepts and Evidence. Bergen Journal of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 7(1), 78–96.
Melle, I. (2013). The Breivik case and what psychiatrists can learn from it. World Psychiatry, 12(1), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20002
Messina, E., Ferracuti, S., Nicolò, G., Ruggeri, M., Kooijmans, T., & Meynen, G. (2019). Forensic psychiatric evaluations of defendants: Italy and the Netherlands compared. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 66(September–October), 101473.
Meynen, G. (2016). Legal insanity. Explorations in Psychiatry, Law, and Ethics. Springer.
Meynen, G. (2017). Brain-based mind reading in forensic psychiatry: Exploring possibilities and perils. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 4(2), 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsx006
Meynen, G. (2019). Forensic psychiatry and neurolaw: Description, developments, and debates. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.04.005
Meynen, G. (2020). Neuroscience-based psychiatric assessments of criminal responsibility: Beyond self-report? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 29(3), 446–458.
Meynen, G. (2021). The insanity defense. In B. Brożek, J. Hage, & N. A. Vincent (Eds.), Law and mind: A survey of the law and the cognitive sciences. Cambridge University Press.
Moratti, S., & Patterson, D. M. (Eds.). (2016). Legal insanity and the brain: Science, law and European courts; with a foreword by Justice Andrâas Sajâo, Vice-President of the European Court of Human Rights. Hart.
Morse, S. J. (2011). Mental disorder and criminal law. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 101(3), 885–968.
Morse, S. J., & Bonnie, R. J. (2013). Abolition of the insanity defense violates due process. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 41(4), 488–495.
Robinson, D. N. (1996). Wild beasts & idle humours: The insanity defense from antiquity to the present. Harvard University Press.
Shniderman, A. B. (2014). The selective allure of neuroscience and its implications for the courtroom. The Jury Expert, 26(4), 1–3.
Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Levy, K. (2011). Insanity defenses. In J. Deigh & D. Dolinko (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of criminal law. Oxford University Press.
Slobogin, C. (2018). Introduction to this special issue: The characteristics of insanity and the insanity evaluation process. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36(3), 271–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2342
Syse, A. (2014). Breivik - The Norwegian terrorist case. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32(3), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2121
Zhao, L., & Ferguson, G. (2013). Understanding China’s mental illness defense. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 24(5), 634–657.
Further Reading Suggestions
Bijlsma, J. (2018). A new interpretation of the modern two-pronged tests for insanity. Why legal insanity should not be a ‘status defense’. Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, 47(1), 29–48.
Meynen, G. (2016). Legal insanity: Explorations in psychiatry, law, and ethics. Springer.
Meynen, G. (2020). Neuroscience-based Psychiatric Assessments of Criminal Responsibility: Beyond self-report? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 29(3), 446–458.
Moratti, S., & Patterson, D. (Eds.). (2016). Legal insanity and the brain: Science, law and European Courts. Hart.
Morse, S. J., & Bonnie, R. J. (2013). Abolition of the insanity defense violates due process. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 4(1), 488–495.
Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Levy, K. (2011). Insanity defenses. In J. Deigh & D. Dolinko (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of criminal law. Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Meynen, G., Bijlsma, J. (2022). Culpability and Accountability: The Insanity Defense. In: Garofalo, C., Sijtsema, J.J. (eds) Clinical Forensic Psychology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80882-2_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80882-2_28
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-80881-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-80882-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)