Is the insanity excuse getting old?

Ariel Castro was recently sentenced to life in prison without parole for kidnapping and subsequently ‘raping’ and torturing Amanda Berry (and fathering a daughter with Berry), Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight. He was sentenced to serve a whopping 1,000 years. As the hearing went on, Castro blamed his misdemeanors on him being addicted to many substances (like pornography), which fit perfectly with Castro’s “mental illness” defense. Castro said, “I am not a monster. I am just sick. I have an addiction, just like an alcoholic has an addiction.” He also said, “I am not a violent person, and I do have value for human life.” From his closing statements, one can see that Castro isn’t fully aware of the terror and hurt he has caused for these 3 girls, and their associated family and friends. Ignorance shouldn’t be an excuse to call in for an ‘insanity’ plea.

The “mental illness” defense is often a fallback defense in court, for people who either are unable or unwilling to understand the severity of their crimes and take responsibility for their actions. It has been over-used and often results in the defense helping their client get off with a lighter sentence. Some other befuddling but successful defenses used in court were:

• The “Matrix Defense”, where Tonda Ansley shot her landlady in the head and got off scot-free as “Ansley’s defense was able to prove that she believed she was inside a computer simulation. As such felt she was entitled to waste anyone around her that could possibly prove a threat. A jury of her peers found her not guilty by reason of mental defect.”
• The “Irresistible Impulse”, where Lorena Bobbitt performed an “amateur penectomy” on her husband. Due to “an irresistible impulse to sexually wound” him after years of domestic abuse, she was acquitted.
• The “Idiot Defense“, where Richard Scrushy, founder of healthcare service provider HealthSouth, company was caught embezzling money. Scrushy was found not guilty on the grounds that he acted like a naive fool in court, claiming he had no knowledge of such activities going on in his company, despite being the lead boss of the company.

What does all this information tell us? First, the legal system is messy and is not improving anytime soon, especially when people find any excuse to sue and cause riffraff nowadays. Second, the legal system could become the punchline of many jokes if they don’t put restrictions on the “insanity” defense.

Some believe that individuals should repent for their harmful actions, the legal system should have tighter rules and regulations on the tests performed and juries chosen. Others believe these procedures would take extra time and the money should be spent elsewhere (i.e. easing rent or tuition). There is much debate on whether hardened criminals should have life in prison (to repent or to not repent for their crimes) or exterminated from altogether (death penalty). Some believe that the death penalty is too harsh, while others believe that paying hefty taxes to provide criminals with the means to live their life ‘comfortably’ in prison is an outrage. In the end, one of the first steps to improving the legal system should be stricter rules on who can access and use the “insanity” defense.

Sources:

http://news.yahoo.com/cleveland-kidnapper-faces-sentence-001821758.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_17470_the-7-most-baffling-criminal-defenses-that-sort-worked.html