Knowles v. Mirzayance

The insanity defense is an odd but intriguing duck. On the one hand, its justification is relatively straight forward. We believe that the full impact of punishment must be reserved for individuals that can fully (or adequately) understand the meaning of their offense. Moral responsibility is as much principle as it is capacity. On the other hand, the insanity defense is a rather opaque construction. It’s comprised in part by cultural judgment and in part by scientific observation. Both aspects shift with time. In early Massachusetts, insanity was irrelevant to the outcome of a trial. Punishments reflected the will of the divine. We’re still a bit leery of the concept today, but we do accept it. Yet for any given insanity defense, the jury must match their concept of insanity with what they know about the defendant. Over the course of a trial, this process of matching is affected by a host of factors, everything from cultural norms and scientific models to the manner and style of argument presentation. The premier guide for mental disorders comes from the APA’s DSM, for instance, but that too has changed and reflects social norms as well as science. Homosexuality until relatively recently was classified as a mental disorder. As acceptance grew during the 90’s, it was declassified as a disorder. Also, interesting is the fact that a low IQ can diminish culpability (through the insanity defense) whereas a high IQ creates no corresponding rise in culpability. Yep, smart people make the laws! So where does all this take us anyway? Not sure. Certainly the concept of insanity is spongier than its advocates care to admit. But still, there are people (perhaps like Mirzayance) that through no fault of their own are legitimately out of their mind. Deciphering between such cases can be difficult and while it may not be a perfect solution, the best means for assessing insanity is probably the one we already utilize, a court of law. Here at least, the law sanctions competing views and meritless insanity defenses can be exposed, wrung as it were, of error.