The Insanity Defense Page 1

The Insanity Defense

Bruna Zainotte

University of Central Florida

The Insanity Defense Page 2

In a criminal court setting, there are 3 types of pleas: guilty, not guilty or no contest. A

defendant can also claim “not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) or guilty but mentally ill

and/or sentenced a less severe punishment. The Insanity Law is also known as the mental

disorder defense; an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendant

is not responsible for his or her actions due to an episodic or persistent psychiatric disease at the

time of the criminal act (Insanity Defense, 2019).” In some cases, the defendant must prove they

did not know what they were doing, did not understand right from wrong or was not able to

control the act. Insanity pleas are not as common as people believe to be. This plea is used in less

than 1% of all cases with about a 26% success rate and 90% of those defendants were previously

diagnosed with a mental illness (Wheatman and Shaffer 2001). Courts will test for legal insanity

and a psychological evaluation is entitled to measure competency to stand trial. If the defendant

is evaluated incompetent, the insanity law is a topic raised for discussion. Most states that

recognize legal insanity use either or a combination of “M’Nahten Rule” (Defendant either did

not understand what he/she did or did not understand right from wrong), “Irresistible Impulse”

(As a result of a mental disease, defendant was unable to control his impulses, which led to a

criminal act), and “Model Penal Code” (because of a diagnosed mental defect, defendant either
The Insanity Defense Page 3

failed to understand the criminality of his acts, or was unable to act within the confines of the

law ). New Hampshire only uses the “Durham Rule” (Regardless of clinical diagnoses,

defendant’s “mental defect” resulted in a criminal act), and four states do not recognize the

insanity plea – Kansas, Idaho, Montana and Utah (Legal Information Institute, n.d). Not only is

claiming insanity not particularly common as people believe, the public believing that defendants

incompetent to stand trial are released back into society is also not true. On Finding for

Defendants, the article explains that it rarely happens and instead they are to remain under

treatment until they can prove they are no longer a danger to themselves and to society

(Wheatman and Shaffer 2001). But what about when they’ve proved their sanity after treatment?

Records have shown that legally insane defendants show somewhat a lower probability of

repeating their crimes compared to other defendants who committed the same crimes, therefore,

although there is a small percentage that will plead insanity and after treatment come to more

rational thinking, records suggests the probability of being convicted again is like any other

defendant. So, why should we handle a legal insanity case differently? Why do these defendants

get away with working the system? Why are psychologists working the system?
The Insanity Defense Page 4

Data suggests pleading insanity in court is not as common as we may believe be, but it

does happen. Psychologists and psychiatrists are helping these individuals work the system in

saying that the defendants were not thinking rationally at the time or are still not ready to be

trialed or convicted. Even so, if an individual has been diagnosed with a mental illness

previously, and has proven that was he/she could decipher right from wrong at the time of

committing a crime, the damage was still done and there still are consequences for the actions

taken. Of course, it’s a psychologist’s job to make sure someone gets the help needed, and that is

why an evaluation is important, however, to how true are these evaluations? If an individual has

never been diagnosed with a mental disease before and is now incapable to even stand trial

because he/she has been determined legally insane, according to the law, this defendant will

remain for treatment as long as needed, but shouldn’t there be consequences to what the damage

was, because legally insane or not, a crime was committed if he/she is now being detained. Is

only being treated enough? If according to data, psychologists and doctors aware that these

individuals have predicted to act again, is only being evaluated a few times while being detained,

and post treatment enough? Psychologists and psychiatrists are helping individuals get away with

actions that just like any other patient would have to pay consequences to. If a doctor determines
The Insanity Defense Page 5

the customer is legally insane and cannot be convicted, are psychologists potentially helping

people go with an excuse. What if, when such a case came up, psychologists were only to help

determine if this patient needs actual treatment before actually being trialed, and get them the

help they need. Instead of having doctors evaluate patients for trial, evaluate them for

competency on whether they need psychological help, and if the case may be, help these

defendants get psychologically prepared for whatever the consequences might be and get them

back on their feet. The case U.S v. Daniel Fernandes Rojo Filho- DFRF Enterprises, LLC is an

example of a defendant who never stood trial because he was evaluated incompetent and the

charges were dismissed. After the psychiatric report that Mr. Filho is “non-restorable in the

foreseeable future”, it is assessment of the court that no accessible medications or extra advances

that can be taken to bring Mr. Filho to a position where the court can serenely be guaranteed that

the respondent can partake for his situation. Although, the government pays no attention to

whether the charges are dropped, still understands Mr. Filho is still a danger to the public and no

further actions will be taken that identifies with people who may have given money to DFRF.

This is an instance where a psychiatrist helped this respondent work the system into having all

charges dismissed after years of committing fraud. The defendant was initially charged with
The Insanity Defense Page 6

raising more than $15 million from about 1,400 investors in a pyramid scheme (SEC Obtains

Final Judgments 2019). It is hard to believe Mr. Filho was not thinking rationally act the time of

his activities. So, if he became mentally unstable after being detained, what if the psychiatrist job

was to work with Mr. Filho to bring his mental stability back and prepared to confront the

outcome.

While it is important for anyone with a mental illness to get the proper treatment

with the help of a psychologist or a psychiatrist, it is also important for people to follow the law

and respond to the consequences. Unfortunately, some people today are able to get away with the

insanity defense, whether they’re legally and correctly diagnosed, have a really good lawyer or

are really good actors. The definition alone describes the term as it really is: an excuse defense

rather than a justification and even so it does not justify a crime. Articles and reports suggest that

individuals who plead insanity do not just get sent back into reality without any measures taken,

however the case above presents facts that prove otherwise. Doctors/psychiatrists helping

defendants get away with a crime with their evaluations. Courts are relying on these

professionals for their suggestion on what route to take with these defendants. In reality, isn’t

this the reason we have a court system set up? Well why not let that be up to the courts and let
The Insanity Defense Page 7

doctors do only what they went to school for? In the case mentioned above, what if the

respondent was kept in treatment until capable to stand trial and then face reality of the situation?

The psychiatrist’s report said the individual was non restorable within the foreseeable future, so

what was the reason for detaining this respondent if nothing was going to be done about it? Big

or small, a crime has consequences for the one committing the crime and for the victim. Doctors,

psychologists, psychiatrists, etc. should not be interfering with the outcome or course of action of

a defendant.
The Insanity Defense Page 8

References

Feuerstein, S., Fortunati, F., Morgan, C.A., Vladimir, C. Temporini, H., Southwick, S., (2005).

The Insanity Defense. Psychiatry Edgmont, 2(9): 24–25.

DFRF Enterprises LLC, et al. (Release No. LR-24496; Jun. 11, 2019) (2019)

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2019/lr24496.htm

Insanity Defense (2019) Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense

Wheatman, S.R. & Shaffer, D.R. Law Hum Behav (2001) 25: 167.

 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005645414992

U.S v. Daniel Fernandes Rojo Filho- DFRD Enterprises, LLC (“DFRF”) (2018)

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/victim-and-witness-assistance-program/us-v-daniel-

fernandes-rojo-filho-dfrf-enterprises-llc-dfrf