Psychology in Law

Psychology in Law

Psychology in law is the extent to which clinicians influence the criminal justice system. In order to arrive at appropriate punishments, the courts need to know when defendants are responsible for their crimes and whether or not they are capable of defending themselves. In some situations, people may not be responsible for their actions due to the fact that they were or are severely mentally unstable. In order to determine whether an individual is considered severely mentally unstable, the court relies heavily on the opinions of mental health professionals.

When individuals are deemed mentally unstable, they then undergo the process of criminal commitment. Criminal commitment is a legal process by which people accused of a crime are instead judged “mentally unstable” and sent to a mental health facility for treatment. A plea known as NGRI, which stands for not guilty by reason of insanity, states that defendants are not guilty of committing a crime because they were insane at the time of their crime or the individual may also be judged unstable at the time of their trial.

There are many arguments regarding the effectiveness of criminal commitment. It seems that there are two groups on either side of this debate. The first group believes that the NGRI is “loophole” for criminals to escape judgments for their actions. The second group believes that our justice system cannot be considered fully “just” without having extenuating circumstances. For example, there are many instances where an individual was totally unaware of what they were doing during the time of a crime. Individuals who could not control themselves do not deserve to be treated like a criminal. The logical solution to this problem is to define the term “insanity” more clearly. The problem with this solution is that many clinicians offer a different definition for the same term.

As a result of the failure of clinicians to adequately define the term “insanity,” legislatures sought out to define this term in hopes to avoid the misuse of criminal commitment. Specific criteria were laid out in order to define this term. The major change that legislatures brought to the definition was that having mental disorders does not mean the individual fits the criteria of being “mentally insane.” From then on a series of tests were used as rules for whether or not a person could be labeled as mentally insane.

The first test was called the M’Naghten test. This test is a widely used legal test for insanity that holds people to be insane at the time they committed a crime if, because of a mental disorder, they did not know the nature of the act or did not know right from wrong. This test is also called the M’Naghten rule. As time went on and the people were upset with the outcomes this test was producing, adopted a different test. The irresistible impulse test is a legal test for insanity that holds people to be insane at the time they committed a crime if they were driven to do so by an uncontrollable “fit of passion.” Yet again, the public became dissatisfied with this test as well. The third test offered up to replace both the M’Naghten and irresistible impulse was the Durham Test. The Durham Test is a legal test for insanity that holds people to be insane at the time they committed a crime if their act was the result of a mental disorder or defect. This test however, was proven to be “too flexible” because situations such as alcoholism, headaches, and ulcers could be used by insanity defenses. As a result, another test was which was called the American Law Institute Test was created. The American Law Institute Test is a legal test for insanity that holds people to be insane at the time they committed a crime if, because of a mental disorder, they did not know right from wrong or could not resist an uncontrollable impulse to act. Eventually, this test was also out ruled due to not having tough enough standards. Today the problem has been resolved by retreating to the M’Naughten test which is now used in all cases tried in federal courts and in about half of the state courts.

The main viewpoints which have created such a debate on what should be done to determine whether or not an individual is mentally insane are the difference between law and science of human behavior. For example the law assumes that individuals have a free will and are generally responsible for their actions. Mental health specialists believe that physical or psychological forces act to determine the individual’s behavior. The public typically sides with the law’s viewpoint because of the ambiguity among different mental health specialists. For example, during some trials the defense clinician’s testimonies on whether or not the individual is actually mentally insane, often differs from the testimony of the clinicians hired by the prosecution. Since clinicians cannot agree on this term, some people believe that clinical assessments should not be allowed to influence legal decisions. The ambiguity among clinicians often results from them trying to figure out the defendant’s mental state during the time of the crime which may have occurred weeks, months, or even years before.

Once the individual has been categorized mentally insane, they are then accepted into the process of criminal commitment. Some people believe that criminal commitment is a loophole for criminals to escape punishment for their