(instrumental music)
- Hey everybody, I'm Ben Bowlin.
- I'm Ben Bowlin.
[Together] - And today's question is
- This is something that we hear all
the time in TV and in film.
Someone's lawyer says, oh well,
they didn't do it because they're crazy.
But usually, the explanation in the TV
shows is a little bit more mysterious.
We don't know exactly by what definition
they are arriving at this.
Or what means they're using to decide
if somebody really is...
- Hello!
- Insane.
And there's a difference here between
insanity and mental illness.
But how do the courts conclude this,
and what are the problems with figuring
out if somebody is legally insane?
- Why would being mentally
ill excuse someone
from criminal guilt?
How is a jury of
non-experts or non-mentally
ill people qualified to figure if somebody
is mentally ill?
And then third, what
sort of mental illness,
what degree of mental illness
constitutes actual insanity?
And then fourth, and
probably the most difficult,
is how can we prove that
someone is or was insane?
It's tricky, you know?
- Yeah, those are great concerns.
And as we said, there's a difference here
between mental illness and insanity.
Mental illness is a legit
psychiatric disorder,
whereas insanity is sort
of a cultural concept.
In a US court of law, mental illness
and insanity may be related, but they are
by no means synonymous.
And this applies in courts in some other
countries as well.
Mental illness at the
time a crime is committed
is a prerequisite of not guilty by reason
of legal insanity, but
legal insanity itself
is a little bit different.
Somebody has to meet
three conditions before
they are found to be legally insane.
- Right, yes.
One, if they have a
mental illness such that
they did not know what they
were doing was illegal.
Or, two, if the mental
illness was such that
he or she just did not know
what they were doing at all.
And then three, and
this one's a little bit
frightening, he or she felt like they were
compelled to do this by
an irresistible force.
- So then, why is a person
who actually committed
these crimes somehow not guilty of them?
Well it all goes back
to when the fundamental
tenets of the US justice
system, which is intent.
You have to intentionally commit a crime
to be found guilty of it.
So, for example, if you accidentally
bump into someone and
they fall on the ground
and injure themselves,
it's going to be looked
at differently than it would if you walked
up to a person, stepped on their foot,
pushed them, or punched them, you know,
if you intentionally meant to hurt them.
And the idea of a mental illness, skewing
the perception of reality
such that a person
doesn't actually understand the reality of
what they're doing, is central to the idea
of this defense.
The intent to commit
the crime is not there.
- Right, so to bring it all back around,
to prove legal insanity, the defense team
has to do two things.
First, they have to have expert testimony
proving the defendant is mentally ill.
Second, they have to also explain how this
mental illness removed the defendant's
ability to reason, to understand what they
were doing, or to do it intentionally.
So the jury is not actually deciding
whether the defendant
is insane or mentally
ill, what they are deciding instead,
is whether the expert testimony has proven
this mental illness or
insanity, and whether
or not that means that the defendant
really did not intentionally
commit the crime.
This means that mental illness, by itself,
is not really a legal defense.
If someone is mentally
ill, and they intended
to commit a crime, or that they jury rules
that they still intentionally
did this illegal
act, then they're still
going to be guilty.
- So that's it.
That's how not guilty by
reason of legal insanity
works, when it does.
[Together] - Thanks so much for watching.
- If you have any other questions,
we'd love to hear them in the comments.
If you'd like to check out some videos,
we've got these here as well.
Go ahead and click Like or Subscribe,
and we will see you next time.
Good work, I think that went well.
(electronic music)
