1 00:00:05,120 --> 00:00:09,080 Speaker 1: Is there such a thing as temporary insanity? Is there 2 00:00:09,160 --> 00:00:13,200 Speaker 1: such a thing as the twinkie defense, or using pre 3 00:00:13,320 --> 00:00:17,080 Speaker 1: menstrual syndrome as a criminal defense? And what does this 4 00:00:17,160 --> 00:00:21,720 Speaker 1: tell us about the differences between brains yours and other people's, 5 00:00:22,040 --> 00:00:25,720 Speaker 1: or even between yours one day and yours the next day. 6 00:00:26,200 --> 00:00:30,360 Speaker 1: How does the legal system wrestle with the science, and 7 00:00:30,520 --> 00:00:34,160 Speaker 1: how are the law and the science like two different 8 00:00:34,159 --> 00:00:38,120 Speaker 1: people with very different ways of looking at the world. 9 00:00:41,000 --> 00:00:44,320 Speaker 1: Welcome to the inner Cosmos with me, David Eagleman. I'm 10 00:00:44,320 --> 00:00:48,320 Speaker 1: a neuroscientist and author at Stanford, and in these episodes 11 00:00:48,400 --> 00:00:52,840 Speaker 1: we sail deeply into our three pound universe to understand 12 00:00:52,920 --> 00:00:56,280 Speaker 1: why we believe the things we do and behave in 13 00:00:56,360 --> 00:00:59,160 Speaker 1: the ways that we do, and why there's such a 14 00:00:59,280 --> 00:01:02,400 Speaker 1: variety in the ways that people see the world, and 15 00:01:02,480 --> 00:01:12,440 Speaker 1: how we try to structure legal systems around that fact. Now, 16 00:01:12,480 --> 00:01:16,039 Speaker 1: today we're picking up on the trial of Andrea Yates, 17 00:01:16,040 --> 00:01:18,680 Speaker 1: who was a young woman in Houston, Texas, who had 18 00:01:18,760 --> 00:01:23,040 Speaker 1: five beautiful children, and one day she murdered them one 19 00:01:23,080 --> 00:01:26,720 Speaker 1: by one by drowning them in the bathtub. Now, if 20 00:01:26,760 --> 00:01:28,880 Speaker 1: you haven't heard the previous episode, please go back to 21 00:01:28,959 --> 00:01:31,560 Speaker 1: that one to get the full background on that story. 22 00:01:32,160 --> 00:01:35,839 Speaker 1: Andrea was suffering from a psychosis, which is a mental 23 00:01:35,840 --> 00:01:41,800 Speaker 1: disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality, and at her trial, 24 00:01:42,200 --> 00:01:47,280 Speaker 1: her lawyers pled the insanity defense, or specifically, not guilty 25 00:01:47,360 --> 00:01:51,840 Speaker 1: by reason of insanity. Now as a reminder, the prosecution 26 00:01:52,360 --> 00:01:56,480 Speaker 1: hired on a psychiatrist who said, yes, Andrea clearly has 27 00:01:56,560 --> 00:01:59,800 Speaker 1: mental troubles, but I think she did this particular act 28 00:02:00,120 --> 00:02:04,960 Speaker 1: more purposefully because if she was unable to distinguish right 29 00:02:05,000 --> 00:02:07,040 Speaker 1: from wrong, which is one of the prongs of the 30 00:02:07,040 --> 00:02:11,280 Speaker 1: insanity defense, then she wouldn't have made sure she waited 31 00:02:11,360 --> 00:02:14,720 Speaker 1: until her husband was gone before doing it, and she 32 00:02:14,760 --> 00:02:19,160 Speaker 1: wouldn't have suffered regret. And Deet said, there was an 33 00:02:19,200 --> 00:02:21,840 Speaker 1: episode of Law and Order, which is a show that 34 00:02:21,919 --> 00:02:25,800 Speaker 1: Andrea watched regularly, in which a woman drowns her children 35 00:02:25,840 --> 00:02:28,280 Speaker 1: in the bathtub so she can be free to be 36 00:02:28,440 --> 00:02:32,400 Speaker 1: with her lover. So Andrea's case brings to the forefront 37 00:02:32,760 --> 00:02:36,919 Speaker 1: some of the deep questions about the insanity defense. How 38 00:02:36,919 --> 00:02:40,880 Speaker 1: do we know when we should judge someone's actions to 39 00:02:40,919 --> 00:02:45,000 Speaker 1: stem from a mental disorder like a psychosis, versus judging 40 00:02:45,000 --> 00:02:48,120 Speaker 1: the person to just be more devious? We can't really 41 00:02:48,160 --> 00:02:51,240 Speaker 1: know what is happening inside someone's head. So how do 42 00:02:51,280 --> 00:02:55,000 Speaker 1: we make these judgments as a society, and how do 43 00:02:55,080 --> 00:03:00,360 Speaker 1: we canonize these decisions into law. I mentioned in the 44 00:03:00,400 --> 00:03:03,959 Speaker 1: last episode that in eighteen forty three a Scottish man 45 00:03:04,040 --> 00:03:08,440 Speaker 1: named Daniel McNaughton suffered from a deep psychosis and he 46 00:03:08,560 --> 00:03:11,720 Speaker 1: shot and killed a man that he erroneously thought was 47 00:03:11,760 --> 00:03:15,200 Speaker 1: the British Prime Minister, and a court of judges sat 48 00:03:15,280 --> 00:03:18,079 Speaker 1: down and defined what came to be known as the 49 00:03:18,160 --> 00:03:21,560 Speaker 1: McNaughton rules, which essentially said that if you want to 50 00:03:22,080 --> 00:03:26,799 Speaker 1: establish an insanity defense, you have to clearly prove that 51 00:03:26,840 --> 00:03:29,400 Speaker 1: at the time of committing the act you had a 52 00:03:29,480 --> 00:03:33,960 Speaker 1: disease of the mind such that you didn't understand the 53 00:03:34,080 --> 00:03:36,920 Speaker 1: nature and quality of the act, like if you pull 54 00:03:36,920 --> 00:03:40,880 Speaker 1: a trigger a bullet comes out, or you didn't know 55 00:03:40,960 --> 00:03:43,560 Speaker 1: that what you were doing was wrong. In other words, 56 00:03:43,600 --> 00:03:48,040 Speaker 1: you were unable to distinguish between right and wrong. Okay, 57 00:03:48,080 --> 00:03:51,400 Speaker 1: So these McNaughton rules caught on in England and America 58 00:03:51,440 --> 00:03:55,880 Speaker 1: and around the world. But in the late nineteenth century, 59 00:03:56,280 --> 00:03:59,560 Speaker 1: legal scholars began to worry that maybe the McNaughton rules 60 00:03:59,600 --> 00:04:04,120 Speaker 1: were too narrow. Why because These rules only ask whether 61 00:04:04,160 --> 00:04:07,000 Speaker 1: a person knows the difference between right and wrong and 62 00:04:07,120 --> 00:04:10,400 Speaker 1: understands the nature and consequences of the actions, and that 63 00:04:10,520 --> 00:04:16,320 Speaker 1: invited concerns for psychiatrists and lawyers. First, can a psychiatrists 64 00:04:16,680 --> 00:04:21,279 Speaker 1: really testify to absolute knowledge of right versus wrong or 65 00:04:21,320 --> 00:04:25,000 Speaker 1: about absolute freedom of choice? And even if they can 66 00:04:25,160 --> 00:04:30,760 Speaker 1: in extreme cases, the rule only allows for total incapacity. 67 00:04:31,400 --> 00:04:34,320 Speaker 1: But what if you're just a little confused about the 68 00:04:34,360 --> 00:04:37,279 Speaker 1: difference between right and wrong? And what if you know 69 00:04:37,440 --> 00:04:41,520 Speaker 1: the difference just fine, except for during a small window 70 00:04:41,560 --> 00:04:46,000 Speaker 1: of time. So let's dig into that. On a February 71 00:04:46,120 --> 00:04:49,560 Speaker 1: day in eighteen fifty nine, there was a United States 72 00:04:49,600 --> 00:04:54,279 Speaker 1: congressman named Daniel Sickles who murdered the US attorney for 73 00:04:54,320 --> 00:04:57,080 Speaker 1: the District of Columbia, a guy named Philip Barton Key. 74 00:04:58,080 --> 00:05:01,840 Speaker 1: Sickles caught a glimpse of Key outside his house, and 75 00:05:02,320 --> 00:05:06,760 Speaker 1: he furiously chased Key into Lafayette Square, across the street 76 00:05:06,760 --> 00:05:09,400 Speaker 1: from the White House, and he shot him in the groin, 77 00:05:09,960 --> 00:05:14,080 Speaker 1: reportedly yelling quote, you villain, you have dishonored my house 78 00:05:14,120 --> 00:05:18,279 Speaker 1: and you must die. Sickles then fatally shot Key in 79 00:05:18,360 --> 00:05:21,600 Speaker 1: the chest as he begged for his life, So what 80 00:05:21,720 --> 00:05:25,839 Speaker 1: led up to that? Well, before these events in Lafayette Square, 81 00:05:26,200 --> 00:05:29,039 Speaker 1: Sickles had been informed by a friend that his wife, 82 00:05:29,120 --> 00:05:34,279 Speaker 1: Teresa was having an affair with Key Now. Sickles lawyer 83 00:05:34,480 --> 00:05:37,839 Speaker 1: Edward Stayton, who went on to become Lincoln's Secretary of War, 84 00:05:38,600 --> 00:05:43,920 Speaker 1: painted Sickles as a betrayed spouse driven crazy by grief 85 00:05:44,320 --> 00:05:48,719 Speaker 1: and what he claimed was quote temporary insanity. For the 86 00:05:48,760 --> 00:05:53,320 Speaker 1: first time in the United States history, this plea was successful, 87 00:05:53,600 --> 00:05:57,560 Speaker 1: and Sickles was declared not guilty. In the United States, 88 00:05:57,839 --> 00:06:02,760 Speaker 1: a temporary insanity defense can be raised to argue that 89 00:06:02,839 --> 00:06:06,960 Speaker 1: a defendant is not responsible for their actions because a 90 00:06:07,000 --> 00:06:12,039 Speaker 1: severe mental disease or defect prevented them from appreciating the 91 00:06:12,080 --> 00:06:16,560 Speaker 1: wrongness of their acts at the time. So different jurisdictions 92 00:06:16,600 --> 00:06:19,480 Speaker 1: treat this differently, but the standard from the Supreme Court 93 00:06:19,480 --> 00:06:23,360 Speaker 1: of Iowa states that quote in order to be an 94 00:06:23,480 --> 00:06:27,320 Speaker 1: excuse and defense for a criminal act, the person accused 95 00:06:27,360 --> 00:06:31,040 Speaker 1: and who claims temporary insanity as a defense must prove 96 00:06:31,200 --> 00:06:35,200 Speaker 1: that the crime charged was caused by mental disease or 97 00:06:35,320 --> 00:06:42,000 Speaker 1: unsoundness which dethroned, overcame, or swayed her reason and judgment. 98 00:06:42,279 --> 00:06:46,600 Speaker 1: With respect to that act which destroyed her power rationally 99 00:06:46,960 --> 00:06:51,719 Speaker 1: to comprehend the nature and consequences of that act end quote. 100 00:06:52,360 --> 00:06:56,880 Speaker 1: So the temporary insanity defense often gets linked with intoxication, 101 00:06:57,400 --> 00:07:01,800 Speaker 1: and in certain jurisdictions, intoxication can be grounds for a 102 00:07:01,880 --> 00:07:07,480 Speaker 1: reduced penalty because of temporary insanity. Now, Sickles act as 103 00:07:07,520 --> 00:07:10,440 Speaker 1: an example of what we commonly refer to today as a 104 00:07:10,800 --> 00:07:15,280 Speaker 1: crime of passion. Under this kind of interpretation, Sickles would 105 00:07:15,320 --> 00:07:20,320 Speaker 1: have been said to have been experiencing extreme emotional disturbance, 106 00:07:20,720 --> 00:07:24,320 Speaker 1: and his crime would likely be reduced from murder to 107 00:07:24,440 --> 00:07:29,560 Speaker 1: voluntary manslaughter. Why because crimes of passion are not punished 108 00:07:29,840 --> 00:07:33,400 Speaker 1: to the same degree. Because there are certain circumstances under 109 00:07:33,440 --> 00:07:37,360 Speaker 1: which we think it's reasonable for someone in extreme emotional 110 00:07:37,440 --> 00:07:41,600 Speaker 1: distress to lose their self control. While we don't condone 111 00:07:41,600 --> 00:07:45,120 Speaker 1: the crime, we intuitively think that a person acting during 112 00:07:45,120 --> 00:07:49,360 Speaker 1: a moment of extreme emotional distress is less culpable than 113 00:07:49,400 --> 00:07:55,200 Speaker 1: the cool headed and calculating criminal. Unlike the insanity defense, 114 00:07:55,760 --> 00:08:00,000 Speaker 1: extreme emotional distress doesn't absolve the defendant of all culpability, 115 00:08:00,280 --> 00:08:04,400 Speaker 1: but it can lessen the degree of the crime. Now, 116 00:08:04,480 --> 00:08:07,120 Speaker 1: you may have heard the term twinkie defense, and this 117 00:08:07,240 --> 00:08:11,640 Speaker 1: is used to describe a seemingly absurd, yet somehow successful 118 00:08:11,720 --> 00:08:15,280 Speaker 1: legal defense, and what this originates from is the nineteen 119 00:08:15,360 --> 00:08:18,760 Speaker 1: seventy nine trial of Dan White for the deaths of 120 00:08:19,120 --> 00:08:23,880 Speaker 1: the San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and supervisor Harvey Milk, 121 00:08:24,160 --> 00:08:28,280 Speaker 1: and the term twinkie defense refers to this commonly held 122 00:08:28,360 --> 00:08:34,120 Speaker 1: but actually inaccurate belief that White's lawyers successfully argued that 123 00:08:34,200 --> 00:08:37,800 Speaker 1: his consumption of Twinkies put enough sugar into his body 124 00:08:38,040 --> 00:08:42,120 Speaker 1: to send him into a murderous state. In actuality, White's 125 00:08:42,160 --> 00:08:48,600 Speaker 1: lawyers argued diminished capacity from depression and his sugary diet 126 00:08:48,720 --> 00:08:53,160 Speaker 1: only played a small role in explaining his mental decline. Nevertheless, 127 00:08:53,440 --> 00:08:57,680 Speaker 1: the term twinkie defense continues to be applied to legal 128 00:08:57,720 --> 00:09:01,360 Speaker 1: defenses that seem ludicrous. Now there are many kinds of 129 00:09:01,400 --> 00:09:05,160 Speaker 1: defenses that people try, and sometimes they're successful. A woman 130 00:09:05,240 --> 00:09:09,000 Speaker 1: in Virginia in nineteen ninety one argued that pre menstrual 131 00:09:09,080 --> 00:09:13,080 Speaker 1: syndrome caused her erratic behavior, and she was able to 132 00:09:13,160 --> 00:09:16,720 Speaker 1: avoid being found guilty of driving under the influence this way, 133 00:09:17,480 --> 00:09:20,800 Speaker 1: and a decade before that, two women in England were 134 00:09:20,920 --> 00:09:25,520 Speaker 1: similarly able to reduce their criminal responsibility from murder to 135 00:09:25,679 --> 00:09:30,840 Speaker 1: manslaughter based on a pre menstrual syndrome defense. Okay, so 136 00:09:30,960 --> 00:09:35,160 Speaker 1: these are the concerns that people have about whether insanity 137 00:09:35,320 --> 00:09:38,240 Speaker 1: can be temporary or not. But let's zoom back out 138 00:09:38,280 --> 00:09:41,840 Speaker 1: to the really big picture about the McNaughton rules and 139 00:09:41,880 --> 00:09:44,960 Speaker 1: what the problems are. The bigger problem with the mcnotton 140 00:09:45,000 --> 00:09:49,680 Speaker 1: rule is that it's too narrowly cognitive. You might know 141 00:09:49,880 --> 00:09:52,320 Speaker 1: the difference between right and wrong, and you might know 142 00:09:52,640 --> 00:09:56,000 Speaker 1: the nature and consequences of your action. But what if 143 00:09:56,040 --> 00:09:58,679 Speaker 1: that's not the problem. What if the real problem is 144 00:09:58,800 --> 00:10:02,920 Speaker 1: one of the In other words, your cognitive reasoning is fine, 145 00:10:03,080 --> 00:10:07,080 Speaker 1: but you can't stop yourself. In later episodes, we'll see 146 00:10:07,080 --> 00:10:11,280 Speaker 1: a lot of examples of impaired volition. For example, there's 147 00:10:11,320 --> 00:10:15,520 Speaker 1: a disease known as frontotemporal lowbar degeneration, where people can 148 00:10:15,559 --> 00:10:18,880 Speaker 1: know perfectly well the difference between right and wrong, but 149 00:10:19,280 --> 00:10:22,920 Speaker 1: they are totally unable to stop their impulsive behavior. They'll 150 00:10:23,120 --> 00:10:26,680 Speaker 1: expose themselves in public, they'll urinate in public, they'll touch 151 00:10:26,720 --> 00:10:31,040 Speaker 1: people inappropriately. They'll shoplift, they'll reach into garbage cans and 152 00:10:31,080 --> 00:10:33,959 Speaker 1: eat food out of it. They'll run red lights, they'll 153 00:10:34,000 --> 00:10:37,240 Speaker 1: curse in public. They just do whatever they want. If 154 00:10:37,280 --> 00:10:41,240 Speaker 1: you ask such a person is shoplifting right or wrong, 155 00:10:41,480 --> 00:10:45,360 Speaker 1: they're perfectly capable of verifying that they're not supposed to 156 00:10:45,400 --> 00:10:48,840 Speaker 1: do it. If you ask you understand when you steal 157 00:10:48,920 --> 00:10:53,040 Speaker 1: it costs someone else money, they'll genuinely agree that. They understand. 158 00:10:53,120 --> 00:10:56,240 Speaker 1: They can discriminate right from wrong, and they understand the 159 00:10:56,320 --> 00:10:59,720 Speaker 1: nature and consequences of their actions. They just can't do 160 00:10:59,760 --> 00:11:03,760 Speaker 1: anything about it. This comes up not only in cases 161 00:11:03,800 --> 00:11:07,719 Speaker 1: of degenerative brain disease, but also in cases of traumatic 162 00:11:07,760 --> 00:11:11,480 Speaker 1: brain injury or from brain disorders that people are sometimes 163 00:11:11,520 --> 00:11:14,640 Speaker 1: born with. In all these cases, a person can understand 164 00:11:14,679 --> 00:11:16,880 Speaker 1: the difference between right and wrong, and they simply don't 165 00:11:16,920 --> 00:11:22,480 Speaker 1: have the proper brain function to stop their transgressions. So 166 00:11:23,240 --> 00:11:28,040 Speaker 1: by the eighteen eighties, scholars wondered whether the legal definition 167 00:11:28,080 --> 00:11:31,800 Speaker 1: of insanity would need to evolve, and to that end, 168 00:11:32,360 --> 00:11:35,960 Speaker 1: an additional prong was added to the insanity defense in 169 00:11:36,000 --> 00:11:41,160 Speaker 1: some jurisdictions, and this was the concept of an irresistible impulse. 170 00:11:42,120 --> 00:11:45,800 Speaker 1: Was the defendant able to control his behavior at the 171 00:11:45,920 --> 00:11:49,240 Speaker 1: time of the offense. I'll give you an example of 172 00:11:49,280 --> 00:11:52,880 Speaker 1: this from eighteen eighty five, a woman named Nancy Parsons 173 00:11:52,960 --> 00:11:56,720 Speaker 1: believed that she knew why she had been sick and 174 00:11:56,760 --> 00:11:59,920 Speaker 1: in bad health for a long time, and her assessment 175 00:11:59,920 --> 00:12:05,240 Speaker 1: was that her husband, Bennett possessed supernatural powers that caused 176 00:12:05,240 --> 00:12:09,079 Speaker 1: her illness and put her at risk of death. So 177 00:12:09,160 --> 00:12:14,480 Speaker 1: she encouraged her daughter to shoot and kill Bennett. Now, 178 00:12:14,640 --> 00:12:19,080 Speaker 1: both Nancy and her daughter sought to employ the insanity defense. 179 00:12:19,440 --> 00:12:23,480 Speaker 1: Nancy was experiencing a quote insane delusion and the daughter 180 00:12:23,840 --> 00:12:27,240 Speaker 1: quote was at the time of said killing and always 181 00:12:27,280 --> 00:12:31,760 Speaker 1: had been an idiot. Now, applying the McNaught rules, the 182 00:12:31,840 --> 00:12:35,880 Speaker 1: jury initially found Nancy and her daughter guilty of murder 183 00:12:35,920 --> 00:12:39,480 Speaker 1: in the second degree. On appeal, however, the state Supreme 184 00:12:39,520 --> 00:12:43,520 Speaker 1: Court reversed the decision and added a component to the 185 00:12:43,559 --> 00:12:48,120 Speaker 1: insanity defense. Someone is not guilty if she was subject 186 00:12:48,200 --> 00:12:52,800 Speaker 1: to quote the dress of such mental disease that she 187 00:12:52,960 --> 00:12:56,160 Speaker 1: had lost the power to choose between right and wrong, 188 00:12:56,679 --> 00:13:00,559 Speaker 1: and her free agency was at the time to destroyed. 189 00:13:01,559 --> 00:13:03,640 Speaker 1: So this was not about knowing the difference between right 190 00:13:03,640 --> 00:13:06,520 Speaker 1: and wrong. Instead, it was about losing the power to 191 00:13:06,679 --> 00:13:09,960 Speaker 1: choose between right and wrong. A person has an impulse 192 00:13:10,000 --> 00:13:14,760 Speaker 1: to act that cannot be resisted. In this way, the 193 00:13:14,840 --> 00:13:19,480 Speaker 1: additional prong makes the McNaughton test slightly broader, although the 194 00:13:19,559 --> 00:13:22,360 Speaker 1: legal defense still has to demonstrate that the crime was 195 00:13:22,400 --> 00:13:25,920 Speaker 1: connected with a mental disease and was directly the product 196 00:13:25,920 --> 00:13:31,479 Speaker 1: of it. So to understand this notion of an irresistible impulse, 197 00:13:32,280 --> 00:13:36,600 Speaker 1: consider a case that you probably remember. LORRAINA. Bobbitt. In 198 00:13:36,679 --> 00:13:40,160 Speaker 1: the wee hours of June twenty third, nineteen ninety three, 199 00:13:40,200 --> 00:13:44,120 Speaker 1: she pulled back the covers on her sleeping husband, John 200 00:13:44,160 --> 00:13:47,680 Speaker 1: Wayne Bobbitt, and cut off his penis with an eight 201 00:13:47,720 --> 00:13:51,600 Speaker 1: inch kitchen knife. She fled from their apartment in her car, 202 00:13:51,880 --> 00:13:56,640 Speaker 1: and she tossed the severed organ into a field. Now 203 00:13:56,640 --> 00:14:00,520 Speaker 1: what led to this moment? At trial, her defence team 204 00:14:00,600 --> 00:14:03,280 Speaker 1: alleged that she had spent the years of their marriage 205 00:14:03,320 --> 00:14:07,800 Speaker 1: being repeatedly raped and beaten and sodomized by her husband, 206 00:14:08,000 --> 00:14:11,080 Speaker 1: and this was verified by expert witnesses on both the 207 00:14:11,080 --> 00:14:15,000 Speaker 1: prosecution and the defense, who validated that she quote lived 208 00:14:15,040 --> 00:14:18,800 Speaker 1: in constant fear of him. In light of this, her 209 00:14:18,880 --> 00:14:24,280 Speaker 1: lawyers argued that she had an irresistible impulse. After many 210 00:14:24,280 --> 00:14:28,080 Speaker 1: hours of deliberation, the jury found lorrain and Bobbitt not 211 00:14:28,360 --> 00:14:32,560 Speaker 1: guilty by reason of temporary insanity based on their conclusion 212 00:14:32,800 --> 00:14:36,520 Speaker 1: that she was unable to resist her impulse to wound John. 213 00:14:37,240 --> 00:14:40,240 Speaker 1: In this way, she was not held liable for her assault. Instead, 214 00:14:40,280 --> 00:14:43,680 Speaker 1: she was sent for a forty five day evaluation at 215 00:14:43,720 --> 00:15:04,920 Speaker 1: a local state hospital. So by the end of the 216 00:15:05,000 --> 00:15:08,880 Speaker 1: nineteenth century it seemed that bases were covered with the 217 00:15:09,040 --> 00:15:13,800 Speaker 1: McNaughton rules plus the notion of an irresistible impulse, But 218 00:15:14,120 --> 00:15:18,040 Speaker 1: legal experts agonized that this version of insanity might still 219 00:15:18,080 --> 00:15:23,280 Speaker 1: be too narrow because the rules only allowed for total incapacity, 220 00:15:23,320 --> 00:15:27,320 Speaker 1: they were insensitive to partial problems, and many people on 221 00:15:27,400 --> 00:15:30,880 Speaker 1: trial were seen to be in a gray area in between, 222 00:15:30,920 --> 00:15:34,200 Speaker 1: not completely unaware of right and wrong, or maybe they 223 00:15:34,200 --> 00:15:38,280 Speaker 1: were subject to impulses that might not be one hundred 224 00:15:38,360 --> 00:15:42,520 Speaker 1: percent irresistible. In the late nineteen forties, there was a 225 00:15:42,560 --> 00:15:46,560 Speaker 1: young man named Monty Durham who had years of petty 226 00:15:46,640 --> 00:15:51,000 Speaker 1: crimes and mental illness, and this familiarized Durham with both 227 00:15:51,000 --> 00:15:54,480 Speaker 1: the criminal justice system and the state asylum. So in 228 00:15:54,600 --> 00:15:58,200 Speaker 1: July of nineteen fifty one, Durham was convicted of housebreaking 229 00:15:58,520 --> 00:16:01,800 Speaker 1: in Washington, d c. And he appealed his case and 230 00:16:01,840 --> 00:16:05,440 Speaker 1: as a result, a new test emerged in nineteen fifty four, 231 00:16:05,760 --> 00:16:08,880 Speaker 1: which is called the Durham rule, and the idea was 232 00:16:09,320 --> 00:16:13,720 Speaker 1: to broaden the mcnot rules such that now the task 233 00:16:13,920 --> 00:16:17,200 Speaker 1: was merely to conclude whether a defendant's criminal act was 234 00:16:17,720 --> 00:16:22,200 Speaker 1: quote the product of mental disease or mental defect. If 235 00:16:22,200 --> 00:16:26,120 Speaker 1: it was, then he would not be criminally responsible. But 236 00:16:26,200 --> 00:16:28,560 Speaker 1: there was a problem here. How do you ever prove 237 00:16:28,680 --> 00:16:32,280 Speaker 1: that some act was the product of a disease or 238 00:16:32,320 --> 00:16:35,960 Speaker 1: a defect. One might claim the disease was related to 239 00:16:36,040 --> 00:16:39,640 Speaker 1: the act, But what portion of the disease came from you? 240 00:16:39,800 --> 00:16:43,240 Speaker 1: And what portion from the disease? But that wasn't even 241 00:16:43,280 --> 00:16:45,840 Speaker 1: the big problem. The big problem was who gets to 242 00:16:45,960 --> 00:16:49,680 Speaker 1: decide if an act was the product of a disease. 243 00:16:50,400 --> 00:16:55,040 Speaker 1: So the Durham rule shifted the power to psychiatrists who 244 00:16:55,080 --> 00:16:59,920 Speaker 1: gave expert testimony. A psychiatrist would testify whether the act 245 00:17:00,120 --> 00:17:03,080 Speaker 1: was the product of a mental disease, and the jury, 246 00:17:03,480 --> 00:17:06,320 Speaker 1: instead of making decisions on their own, was in a 247 00:17:06,359 --> 00:17:11,239 Speaker 1: position of just having to accept the psychiatrist's testimony. In 248 00:17:11,280 --> 00:17:14,240 Speaker 1: other words, starting in nineteen fifty four, the power was 249 00:17:14,240 --> 00:17:19,280 Speaker 1: in the physician's expert testimony instead of in the juror's hands. Now, 250 00:17:19,320 --> 00:17:22,200 Speaker 1: at first blush, that doesn't seem like a problem, because, 251 00:17:22,359 --> 00:17:25,520 Speaker 1: after all, the psychiatrists are the experts. But the problem 252 00:17:25,960 --> 00:17:30,040 Speaker 1: was that their testimony could be ambiguous and two experts 253 00:17:30,040 --> 00:17:33,760 Speaker 1: could contradict one another. Imagine the defense pulls up their 254 00:17:34,080 --> 00:17:37,920 Speaker 1: favorite psychiatrists who asserts that mister Smith has clear evidence 255 00:17:37,920 --> 00:17:40,879 Speaker 1: of a mental illness, and then the prosecution puts up 256 00:17:40,920 --> 00:17:45,919 Speaker 1: their psychiatrists who says the opposite. Suddenly, the fact finding 257 00:17:46,040 --> 00:17:51,280 Speaker 1: job of the jury becomes complexified. Relying on expert witness 258 00:17:51,359 --> 00:17:55,560 Speaker 1: testimony turned out to be much more problematic than they 259 00:17:55,560 --> 00:17:59,480 Speaker 1: had originally envisioned. So the Durham rule held sway in 260 00:17:59,600 --> 00:18:03,280 Speaker 1: US Corps for eighteen years. But then one night at 261 00:18:03,320 --> 00:18:06,680 Speaker 1: a party, a man named Archie Brauner got into a fight. 262 00:18:07,040 --> 00:18:11,119 Speaker 1: He left bleeding and returned with a gun, and after 263 00:18:11,160 --> 00:18:15,879 Speaker 1: shooting and killing a man, Bronner was arrested. The court 264 00:18:16,000 --> 00:18:20,080 Speaker 1: tested for insanity using a standard that's now known as 265 00:18:20,119 --> 00:18:24,040 Speaker 1: the Bronner rule, and the rule states a person is 266 00:18:24,200 --> 00:18:27,760 Speaker 1: not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of 267 00:18:27,840 --> 00:18:31,320 Speaker 1: the action, as a result of mental disease or defect, 268 00:18:31,960 --> 00:18:36,359 Speaker 1: he or she lacks the substantial capacity either to appreciate 269 00:18:36,720 --> 00:18:41,680 Speaker 1: the criminality of his conduct, or to conform his conduct 270 00:18:41,680 --> 00:18:45,280 Speaker 1: to the requirements of the law. The key thing about 271 00:18:45,320 --> 00:18:49,879 Speaker 1: the Bronner rule is that expert witnesses no longer decided 272 00:18:49,920 --> 00:18:53,399 Speaker 1: whether the crime resulted from a mental defect. Instead, that 273 00:18:53,560 --> 00:18:58,000 Speaker 1: was now up to the jurors. If a defendant wanted 274 00:18:58,040 --> 00:19:00,840 Speaker 1: to claim that he wasn't liable for a crime, his 275 00:19:00,960 --> 00:19:04,280 Speaker 1: argument had to meet two prongs. He has to lack 276 00:19:04,359 --> 00:19:07,840 Speaker 1: the capacity to appreciate that his conduct was wrongful, and 277 00:19:07,920 --> 00:19:11,240 Speaker 1: he has to lack the capacity to conform his conduct. 278 00:19:12,160 --> 00:19:14,359 Speaker 1: So why have I told you this whole history of 279 00:19:14,440 --> 00:19:19,000 Speaker 1: the insanity defense. It's because this illustrates a really key point, 280 00:19:19,480 --> 00:19:22,560 Speaker 1: which is that it's not easy to take something as 281 00:19:22,600 --> 00:19:26,879 Speaker 1: complex as mental life and reduce it cleanly into a 282 00:19:27,040 --> 00:19:31,080 Speaker 1: yes or no decision in the courtroom. The endeavor to 283 00:19:31,160 --> 00:19:36,040 Speaker 1: build the right definition relies on a collaboration of psychiatry 284 00:19:36,080 --> 00:19:39,959 Speaker 1: and legal scholarship and the public, and because of the 285 00:19:40,119 --> 00:19:46,520 Speaker 1: inherently diversified goals, the road to definitive rules didn't even 286 00:19:46,680 --> 00:19:50,520 Speaker 1: end with the Broader rule. Over a century after McNaughton 287 00:19:50,600 --> 00:19:54,400 Speaker 1: committed his homicide, there was a troubled twenty five year 288 00:19:54,400 --> 00:19:59,320 Speaker 1: old American named John who was developing an increasing obsession 289 00:19:59,760 --> 00:20:04,000 Speaker 1: with the actress Jody Foster, and so he repeatedly watched 290 00:20:04,040 --> 00:20:08,359 Speaker 1: this movie Taxi Driver, in which the young Foster played 291 00:20:08,400 --> 00:20:11,600 Speaker 1: a twelve year old prostitute. And in the movie, the 292 00:20:11,920 --> 00:20:15,160 Speaker 1: protagonist Travis Bickle, who is played by Robert de Niro, 293 00:20:15,880 --> 00:20:20,840 Speaker 1: hatches a plot to assassinate a politician for public admiration. 294 00:20:21,880 --> 00:20:26,719 Speaker 1: So John, with his unshakable love for Jody Foster, began 295 00:20:26,840 --> 00:20:30,000 Speaker 1: to send letters to her and stalk her, and he 296 00:20:30,080 --> 00:20:32,360 Speaker 1: somehow got a hold of her phone number, and he 297 00:20:32,440 --> 00:20:34,800 Speaker 1: rang her several times, and every time she hung up. 298 00:20:35,480 --> 00:20:39,560 Speaker 1: And he wrote in his final letter to her, quote, 299 00:20:39,680 --> 00:20:42,240 Speaker 1: as you very well know by now, I love you 300 00:20:42,440 --> 00:20:45,520 Speaker 1: very much. The past seven months, I have left you 301 00:20:45,640 --> 00:20:50,080 Speaker 1: dozens of poems, letters, and messages in the faint hope 302 00:20:50,200 --> 00:20:52,919 Speaker 1: that you would develop an interest in me. Although we 303 00:20:53,040 --> 00:20:55,560 Speaker 1: talked on the phone a couple of times, I never 304 00:20:55,640 --> 00:20:59,359 Speaker 1: had the nerve to simply approach you and introduce myself. 305 00:21:00,000 --> 00:21:03,280 Speaker 1: Desides my shyness, I honestly did not wish to bother 306 00:21:03,359 --> 00:21:06,760 Speaker 1: you with my constant presence. I know that many messages 307 00:21:06,840 --> 00:21:09,880 Speaker 1: left at your door and in your mailbox were a nuisance, 308 00:21:10,160 --> 00:21:12,679 Speaker 1: but I felt it was the most painless way for 309 00:21:12,760 --> 00:21:16,200 Speaker 1: me to express my love to you. I will admit 310 00:21:16,240 --> 00:21:19,000 Speaker 1: to you that the reason I'm going ahead with this 311 00:21:19,040 --> 00:21:22,960 Speaker 1: attempt now is because I just cannot wait any longer 312 00:21:23,000 --> 00:21:28,200 Speaker 1: to impress you. End quote. Now. The attempt he's referring 313 00:21:28,240 --> 00:21:33,399 Speaker 1: to there was the assassination of President Ronald Reagan. So 314 00:21:33,520 --> 00:21:37,520 Speaker 1: on March thirtieth, nineteen eighty one, John Hinckley fired six 315 00:21:37,560 --> 00:21:41,479 Speaker 1: shots as the president and his entourage exited the Hilton 316 00:21:41,520 --> 00:21:45,560 Speaker 1: Hotel in Washington, d c. None of Hinckley's bullets directly 317 00:21:45,640 --> 00:21:48,320 Speaker 1: hit Reagan, but one ricochet off the limousine and hit 318 00:21:48,359 --> 00:21:51,919 Speaker 1: the president under his left armpit, and three other people 319 00:21:51,920 --> 00:21:55,600 Speaker 1: in the party were wounded, including the Press secretary James Brady, 320 00:21:55,600 --> 00:21:58,560 Speaker 1: who spent the rest of his life partially paralyzed on 321 00:21:58,600 --> 00:22:01,879 Speaker 1: the left side of his body. Now, this act of 322 00:22:02,000 --> 00:22:07,560 Speaker 1: senseless violence led to a national uproar, people thirsted for 323 00:22:07,680 --> 00:22:12,320 Speaker 1: a swift and effective punishment for Hinckley. The federal trial 324 00:22:12,480 --> 00:22:15,199 Speaker 1: was quickly set into motion, and at the end the 325 00:22:15,320 --> 00:22:18,919 Speaker 1: jury gathered in their room with their coffee cups and 326 00:22:18,960 --> 00:22:22,200 Speaker 1: spent a long time deliberating over everything they had seen, 327 00:22:22,800 --> 00:22:28,240 Speaker 1: and they agreed that Hinckley was indeed deeply psychotic. He 328 00:22:28,400 --> 00:22:32,480 Speaker 1: was disconnected from reality and was unable to conform to 329 00:22:32,520 --> 00:22:36,320 Speaker 1: the requirements of the law. So on June twenty first, 330 00:22:36,359 --> 00:22:40,920 Speaker 1: eighty two, Hinckley was declared not guilty by reason of insanity. 331 00:22:41,840 --> 00:22:45,800 Speaker 1: But this pill was a jagged one for the public 332 00:22:45,840 --> 00:22:49,840 Speaker 1: to swallow, just as in Queen Victoria's Day, which I 333 00:22:49,840 --> 00:22:53,040 Speaker 1: talked about in the last episode, the air was filled 334 00:22:53,080 --> 00:22:59,119 Speaker 1: with outcries and citizens had just witnessed an assassination attempt 335 00:22:59,160 --> 00:23:02,359 Speaker 1: on their president, and they were enraged. They felt that 336 00:23:02,720 --> 00:23:07,159 Speaker 1: they were being denied their right to see punishment. After all, 337 00:23:07,359 --> 00:23:11,439 Speaker 1: people asked, how do we know if Hinckley truly had 338 00:23:11,720 --> 00:23:17,320 Speaker 1: an impulse that was irresistible or simply an impulse not resisted. 339 00:23:18,240 --> 00:23:23,679 Speaker 1: All this national anger sparked action at the congressional level. Lawmakers, 340 00:23:24,080 --> 00:23:27,800 Speaker 1: responding to all this ire came together to pass the 341 00:23:27,840 --> 00:23:32,399 Speaker 1: Insanity Defense Reform Act of nineteen eighty four. The act 342 00:23:32,520 --> 00:23:37,000 Speaker 1: stripped the insanity defense back to a simpler version. A 343 00:23:37,040 --> 00:23:41,280 Speaker 1: defendant could now escape criminalizability only if he was unable 344 00:23:41,320 --> 00:23:45,359 Speaker 1: to appreciate the nature and quality, or the wrongfulness of 345 00:23:45,400 --> 00:23:47,879 Speaker 1: the Act. In other words, it got rid of the 346 00:23:47,960 --> 00:23:51,920 Speaker 1: irresistible impulse prong. It brought it back to the McNaughton rules. 347 00:23:52,359 --> 00:23:56,120 Speaker 1: It got rid of the consideration of whether you were 348 00:23:56,320 --> 00:23:59,920 Speaker 1: able to appropriately conform your behavior. All that mattered now 349 00:24:00,119 --> 00:24:03,840 Speaker 1: is whether a defendant could appreciate right from wrong. If 350 00:24:03,880 --> 00:24:07,520 Speaker 1: there was some reason he couldn't help himself, from frontal 351 00:24:07,520 --> 00:24:11,119 Speaker 1: low problems to psychosis, he was out of luck and surfing. 352 00:24:11,160 --> 00:24:13,920 Speaker 1: On top of this wave of national anger, Congress went 353 00:24:13,960 --> 00:24:19,040 Speaker 1: even further beyond removing this volitional component. They also added 354 00:24:19,080 --> 00:24:22,200 Speaker 1: conditions to raise the bar for the insanity defense. They 355 00:24:22,640 --> 00:24:26,000 Speaker 1: specified that the defendant has to suffer from a severe 356 00:24:26,119 --> 00:24:29,439 Speaker 1: mental illness, and the defendant has to prove by clear 357 00:24:29,560 --> 00:24:34,040 Speaker 1: and convincing evidence the alleged insanity, which was higher than 358 00:24:34,080 --> 00:24:37,520 Speaker 1: before which was just a preponderance of evidence. So, in 359 00:24:37,560 --> 00:24:40,919 Speaker 1: addition to raising the standard of proof, the Act further 360 00:24:41,040 --> 00:24:44,600 Speaker 1: complicated things by shifting the burden of proof from the 361 00:24:44,640 --> 00:24:48,760 Speaker 1: prosecution to the defense. In other words, before Hankley, the 362 00:24:48,760 --> 00:24:53,359 Speaker 1: prosecution had to prove that the defendant was not insane, 363 00:24:53,680 --> 00:24:58,000 Speaker 1: but now the defendant had to prove that he was insane. 364 00:24:58,080 --> 00:25:00,080 Speaker 1: And part of the difficulty here is that a. The 365 00:25:00,280 --> 00:25:05,639 Speaker 1: central feature of psychosis is a lack of insight. So 366 00:25:05,920 --> 00:25:10,239 Speaker 1: consider the unibomber ted Kaczynski, who killed three people and 367 00:25:10,400 --> 00:25:14,640 Speaker 1: injured twenty three others by sending them explosives in the mail. 368 00:25:14,680 --> 00:25:19,520 Speaker 1: Although he clearly had paranoid schizophrenia, he took offense to 369 00:25:19,600 --> 00:25:24,280 Speaker 1: any suggestions or implications that he was mentally ill. He 370 00:25:24,359 --> 00:25:28,520 Speaker 1: wouldn't follow his lawyer's suggestion to take the insanity plea 371 00:25:29,000 --> 00:25:32,080 Speaker 1: because he was angered that anyone would be suggesting that 372 00:25:32,240 --> 00:25:36,080 Speaker 1: something was wrong with his thinking. So a lack of 373 00:25:36,200 --> 00:25:40,639 Speaker 1: insight is a hallmark characteristic of people with psychosis. They 374 00:25:40,640 --> 00:25:45,440 Speaker 1: have no discernment that something is strange about their behavior. Instead, 375 00:25:45,840 --> 00:25:49,240 Speaker 1: they believe they're seeing the world correctly while others are not. 376 00:25:50,040 --> 00:25:54,040 Speaker 1: So it's no surprise that many defendants have a mental 377 00:25:54,080 --> 00:25:58,480 Speaker 1: illness but will not take an insanity plea because they 378 00:25:58,560 --> 00:26:02,240 Speaker 1: see a full justification for their actions, whether that was 379 00:26:02,720 --> 00:26:09,200 Speaker 1: divine commandment or revenge for imagined political wrongdoings, or other 380 00:26:09,600 --> 00:26:29,680 Speaker 1: fantastical reasons. So I'm telling you all this to make 381 00:26:29,720 --> 00:26:34,280 Speaker 1: it clear that the legal definition of insanity is more 382 00:26:34,720 --> 00:26:39,360 Speaker 1: complicated than the road which began with Daniel McNaughton. In America, 383 00:26:39,680 --> 00:26:42,960 Speaker 1: if a defendant suffers from a mental disease, you might 384 00:26:43,000 --> 00:26:47,520 Speaker 1: have four different tests used in different places, and cases 385 00:26:47,960 --> 00:26:51,520 Speaker 1: can conclude very differently depending on which test is employed. 386 00:26:52,119 --> 00:26:55,720 Speaker 1: Some jurisdictions still use the McNaughton rule. One still uses 387 00:26:55,760 --> 00:26:59,000 Speaker 1: the Durham rule almost half free line on the broader rule. 388 00:26:59,240 --> 00:27:03,080 Speaker 1: The Federal Core and several other jurisdictions employ the Insanity 389 00:27:03,160 --> 00:27:08,199 Speaker 1: Defense Reform Act, and the state by state bespoke nature 390 00:27:08,760 --> 00:27:13,160 Speaker 1: doesn't even end there. In nineteen ninety five, Kansas abolished 391 00:27:13,440 --> 00:27:17,199 Speaker 1: the affirmative insanity defense and established what's known as the 392 00:27:17,600 --> 00:27:22,200 Speaker 1: mensrea approach. Under this approach, mental illness is only considered 393 00:27:22,560 --> 00:27:26,320 Speaker 1: to the extent that it prevents the defendant from having 394 00:27:26,400 --> 00:27:31,320 Speaker 1: the required mensrea or guilty mind. For example, if a 395 00:27:31,400 --> 00:27:35,800 Speaker 1: defendant knowingly commits a crime but couldn't know what she 396 00:27:35,920 --> 00:27:39,280 Speaker 1: was doing because of her mental illness, that would satisfy 397 00:27:39,320 --> 00:27:43,639 Speaker 1: the mens rea approach. The defendants act to judge the 398 00:27:43,720 --> 00:27:48,000 Speaker 1: wrongfulness of her acts just doesn't matter. So Kansas's decision 399 00:27:48,200 --> 00:27:51,160 Speaker 1: rose to the US Supreme Court in twenty twenty after 400 00:27:51,200 --> 00:27:54,720 Speaker 1: a guy named James Craig Kaylor killed his wife and 401 00:27:54,840 --> 00:27:58,959 Speaker 1: two teenage daughters, and his wife's grandmother. He had a 402 00:27:59,119 --> 00:28:02,960 Speaker 1: major depression an obsessive personality disorder, but he was not 403 00:28:03,119 --> 00:28:07,080 Speaker 1: allowed to use an affirmative insanity defense and he was 404 00:28:07,080 --> 00:28:09,679 Speaker 1: given a death sentence. So his team appealed to the 405 00:28:09,800 --> 00:28:13,919 Speaker 1: Kansas Supreme Court, and they argued that the prosecution had 406 00:28:13,960 --> 00:28:17,160 Speaker 1: violated his right to a fair trial by denying him 407 00:28:17,640 --> 00:28:22,560 Speaker 1: the right to leverage the insanity defense. But Kansas said 408 00:28:22,800 --> 00:28:25,679 Speaker 1: that they were within their rights to craft their insanity 409 00:28:25,680 --> 00:28:28,399 Speaker 1: defense however they chose. So this went all the way 410 00:28:28,480 --> 00:28:32,119 Speaker 1: up to the US Supreme Court, and his council argued 411 00:28:32,480 --> 00:28:36,320 Speaker 1: that a state government shouldn't be able to impose cruel 412 00:28:36,359 --> 00:28:40,680 Speaker 1: and unusual punishment, and a lack of insanity defense fit 413 00:28:40,760 --> 00:28:45,840 Speaker 1: this description. Additionally, they argued that Kansas's approach violated his 414 00:28:46,080 --> 00:28:49,480 Speaker 1: due process, which calls for the fair treatment by the 415 00:28:49,560 --> 00:28:53,520 Speaker 1: judicial system. They argued that ignoring this question of could 416 00:28:53,600 --> 00:28:57,880 Speaker 1: you distinguish right from wrong equated to an unfair system. 417 00:28:58,520 --> 00:29:02,000 Speaker 1: So the US Supreme Court affirmed that Kansas was not 418 00:29:02,080 --> 00:29:05,880 Speaker 1: required to take on in the sanity defense that depended 419 00:29:05,920 --> 00:29:09,040 Speaker 1: on a defendant's ability to recognize that their crime was 420 00:29:09,080 --> 00:29:12,160 Speaker 1: morally wrong. In other words, the court concluded that it 421 00:29:12,200 --> 00:29:17,120 Speaker 1: was the state's decision and that decisions surrounding criminal liability 422 00:29:17,160 --> 00:29:20,880 Speaker 1: and mental illness were left to them. So, as of 423 00:29:20,920 --> 00:29:24,000 Speaker 1: twenty twenty, there are four states that have committed to 424 00:29:24,040 --> 00:29:28,400 Speaker 1: the men's rea approach rather than a traditional insanity defense. 425 00:29:29,600 --> 00:29:33,040 Speaker 1: Here's the thing, there's no single right answer that everyone 426 00:29:33,120 --> 00:29:37,760 Speaker 1: should use, and this underscores the difficulty, both legal and psychiatric, 427 00:29:38,280 --> 00:29:41,840 Speaker 1: of deciding who is criminally liable and who is not. 428 00:29:42,720 --> 00:29:45,760 Speaker 1: And this is not just a current challenge. It's not 429 00:29:45,800 --> 00:29:48,800 Speaker 1: as though in another few decades scientists are going to 430 00:29:48,840 --> 00:29:51,960 Speaker 1: announce that we've got it all worked out. Why not 431 00:29:52,400 --> 00:29:58,040 Speaker 1: because humans are complex and mental life varies along many axes. 432 00:29:58,440 --> 00:30:03,120 Speaker 1: Some people suffer deep mental illnesses, and most thinkers believe 433 00:30:03,200 --> 00:30:06,200 Speaker 1: that they should be treated differently. But how do we 434 00:30:06,400 --> 00:30:09,800 Speaker 1: draw a bright line in the sand of a very 435 00:30:09,840 --> 00:30:14,360 Speaker 1: complex landscape. The legal system, after all, is forced to 436 00:30:14,440 --> 00:30:18,840 Speaker 1: be categorical. The judge and jury are tasked with deciding 437 00:30:19,320 --> 00:30:22,880 Speaker 1: whether a defendant is or is not insane. And the 438 00:30:22,960 --> 00:30:27,880 Speaker 1: fact is that science and the law are strange bedfellows 439 00:30:27,920 --> 00:30:32,000 Speaker 1: because science does not see things in binary categories like that. 440 00:30:32,560 --> 00:30:35,280 Speaker 1: So the legal system has been wrestling for many decades 441 00:30:35,320 --> 00:30:41,400 Speaker 1: about how a person's cognition and volition matter in their culpability. 442 00:30:41,680 --> 00:30:46,520 Speaker 1: But every time a famous person gets attacked, society's generous 443 00:30:46,560 --> 00:30:50,720 Speaker 1: interest in this issue gets scaled back. Why because many people, 444 00:30:50,760 --> 00:30:54,680 Speaker 1: perhaps most have little to know experience with mental illness, 445 00:30:54,680 --> 00:30:59,040 Speaker 1: and therefore they see the insanity plea as simply an 446 00:30:59,120 --> 00:31:02,920 Speaker 1: excuse that people people are trying for bad behavior. After all, 447 00:31:02,960 --> 00:31:06,600 Speaker 1: how would you know with certainty whether lorraina Bobbits act 448 00:31:07,080 --> 00:31:10,840 Speaker 1: was an irresistible impulse or justin urge that had not 449 00:31:11,000 --> 00:31:16,560 Speaker 1: been repelled. So with the intersection of neuroscience and law, 450 00:31:17,000 --> 00:31:20,640 Speaker 1: there is not always a clear solution. But we know 451 00:31:20,840 --> 00:31:24,560 Speaker 1: enough about human variation to know that the search has 452 00:31:24,600 --> 00:31:29,840 Speaker 1: to continue, and so, as it stands, different jurisdictions make 453 00:31:30,080 --> 00:31:34,760 Speaker 1: individualized choices about how they think insanity should be handled. 454 00:31:35,640 --> 00:31:38,880 Speaker 1: So what happened to Andrea Yates, the woman who drowned 455 00:31:38,920 --> 00:31:43,280 Speaker 1: her children in the bathtub. Her council pled the insanity defense. 456 00:31:43,320 --> 00:31:46,560 Speaker 1: They argued that she had suffered from severe mental illness, 457 00:31:46,880 --> 00:31:50,480 Speaker 1: that she'd attempted suicide many times, that she'd shuttled in 458 00:31:50,520 --> 00:31:54,200 Speaker 1: and out of psychiatric hospitals, and that she had this 459 00:31:54,360 --> 00:31:57,680 Speaker 1: belief that she was saving her children from hell by 460 00:31:57,760 --> 00:32:03,200 Speaker 1: killing them. Her plea was unsuccessful. On the one year 461 00:32:03,280 --> 00:32:07,040 Speaker 1: anniversary of her father's death, Andrea Yates was found guilty 462 00:32:07,400 --> 00:32:13,480 Speaker 1: of murder, but Andrea's defense counsel found reason to hope 463 00:32:13,520 --> 00:32:18,239 Speaker 1: for a mistrial. Remember, the prosecutor mentioned an episode of 464 00:32:18,320 --> 00:32:20,960 Speaker 1: Law and Order in which a woman drowned her children 465 00:32:21,000 --> 00:32:24,760 Speaker 1: in the bathtub. As it turned out, there was no 466 00:32:24,920 --> 00:32:28,360 Speaker 1: episode with that plot. Whether this was by deception or 467 00:32:28,560 --> 00:32:34,400 Speaker 1: just misremembering, Dietz's claim had been totally false. In two 468 00:32:34,440 --> 00:32:39,280 Speaker 1: thousand and five, Andrea's conviction was reversed because of Dietz's 469 00:32:39,320 --> 00:32:45,120 Speaker 1: false testimony. A four week retrial ensued, and this time 470 00:32:45,680 --> 00:32:49,720 Speaker 1: the jury found Andrea not guilty by reason of insanity. 471 00:32:50,800 --> 00:32:54,680 Speaker 1: Andrea is locked away for life, but in a psychiatric 472 00:32:54,760 --> 00:32:58,560 Speaker 1: institution where she has a roommate, she gets care, she's 473 00:32:58,600 --> 00:33:03,680 Speaker 1: on medications, the public is safe, she presents no danger 474 00:33:03,680 --> 00:33:06,960 Speaker 1: to anybody, and she can obtain the help that she needs. 475 00:33:07,840 --> 00:33:13,040 Speaker 1: So why is there a public resistance to the insanity defense. Well, first, 476 00:33:13,520 --> 00:33:18,160 Speaker 1: there's often this misunderstanding about the not guilty part of 477 00:33:18,200 --> 00:33:21,280 Speaker 1: the plea, and the public is often horrified by the 478 00:33:21,320 --> 00:33:25,880 Speaker 1: notion that some person, whether that's McNaughton or Hinckley, is 479 00:33:26,000 --> 00:33:30,400 Speaker 1: not culpable for a horrific crime. There's a feeling that 480 00:33:30,440 --> 00:33:35,000 Speaker 1: they're not appropriately punished for their actions if they're simply 481 00:33:35,120 --> 00:33:39,920 Speaker 1: sent to a cushy hospital. And also a lot of people, 482 00:33:40,160 --> 00:33:43,760 Speaker 1: especially those with no direct connection to someone with mental illness, 483 00:33:44,280 --> 00:33:47,080 Speaker 1: they think that everyone is the same on the inside, 484 00:33:47,440 --> 00:33:52,920 Speaker 1: and that the insanity defense is just an invitation to deceive. Now, 485 00:33:53,040 --> 00:33:56,360 Speaker 1: one thing to note here is that only one percent 486 00:33:56,520 --> 00:34:00,000 Speaker 1: of felony cases in the US involve the insanity defense. 487 00:34:00,120 --> 00:34:03,719 Speaker 1: It's not generally a part of public knowledge that this 488 00:34:03,800 --> 00:34:06,760 Speaker 1: is such a very rare plea. Instead, a lot of 489 00:34:06,760 --> 00:34:10,200 Speaker 1: people have the opinion that everyone who murderers is simply 490 00:34:10,200 --> 00:34:12,640 Speaker 1: going to plead insanity to try to get away with that, 491 00:34:13,520 --> 00:34:17,160 Speaker 1: and of those who plead the insanity defense, only about 492 00:34:17,360 --> 00:34:21,720 Speaker 1: thirty cases or successful each year. Even in these successful cases, 493 00:34:22,440 --> 00:34:26,319 Speaker 1: the sentences are often longer because a person can be 494 00:34:26,600 --> 00:34:31,279 Speaker 1: sentenced to a prison hospital for a long time, and 495 00:34:31,440 --> 00:34:35,200 Speaker 1: it's not uncommon that those sentences end up being worse 496 00:34:35,480 --> 00:34:39,680 Speaker 1: than prison itself. What worse means depends on the decade 497 00:34:39,680 --> 00:34:42,880 Speaker 1: you're in, but sometimes In these prison hospitals, a person 498 00:34:43,000 --> 00:34:46,680 Speaker 1: is kept in a drug induced stupor for the remaining 499 00:34:46,800 --> 00:34:49,560 Speaker 1: years of their life. So, in the same way that 500 00:34:49,719 --> 00:34:53,200 Speaker 1: prisons can often lead to more crime, some mental health 501 00:34:53,200 --> 00:34:59,040 Speaker 1: institutions are thought to actually worsen a psychosis. For this reason, 502 00:34:59,160 --> 00:35:04,600 Speaker 1: there was a push for the institutionalization in nineteen sixties America. 503 00:35:04,960 --> 00:35:08,319 Speaker 1: The country used to run a large mental health care 504 00:35:08,360 --> 00:35:12,080 Speaker 1: system of what were called insane asylums, but these asylums 505 00:35:12,160 --> 00:35:15,680 Speaker 1: proved less than perfect. In many instances, men and women 506 00:35:15,800 --> 00:35:20,719 Speaker 1: in hospital gowns led meaningless lives. They were just bodies 507 00:35:20,800 --> 00:35:25,480 Speaker 1: being kept alive. So these mental institutions were shut down 508 00:35:25,960 --> 00:35:29,600 Speaker 1: with plans to have a network of halfway houses and 509 00:35:29,760 --> 00:35:34,040 Speaker 1: other mechanisms to help people back into productive society, but 510 00:35:34,200 --> 00:35:37,759 Speaker 1: that part was never fully implemented, and so the shutdown 511 00:35:38,239 --> 00:35:41,960 Speaker 1: led to a large homeless population and to many of 512 00:35:42,040 --> 00:35:47,280 Speaker 1: the former inhabitants of the asylums flowing into the prison system. 513 00:35:47,920 --> 00:35:51,040 Speaker 1: So some people argue that the insanity defense is not 514 00:35:51,400 --> 00:35:56,800 Speaker 1: often invoked, in part because prison hospitalizations can be worse 515 00:35:56,880 --> 00:36:01,840 Speaker 1: and lasts longer than prison sentences. And there's another problem 516 00:36:01,880 --> 00:36:05,080 Speaker 1: that some scholars point to about the not guilty by 517 00:36:05,120 --> 00:36:08,920 Speaker 1: reason of insanity plea, which is that jurors find themselves 518 00:36:08,960 --> 00:36:11,640 Speaker 1: in a tough spot when they have to deal with 519 00:36:11,680 --> 00:36:16,520 Speaker 1: the words not guilty. After all, the person did commit 520 00:36:16,560 --> 00:36:20,040 Speaker 1: the crime, right. It turns out that when juries are 521 00:36:20,040 --> 00:36:24,719 Speaker 1: given other options, they come to more nuanced decisions. So 522 00:36:25,040 --> 00:36:28,799 Speaker 1: to this end, some states have adopted the term guilty 523 00:36:29,280 --> 00:36:33,799 Speaker 1: but mentally ill, and that gives an option to root 524 00:36:33,840 --> 00:36:36,680 Speaker 1: someone to mental health care while not making the jury 525 00:36:36,800 --> 00:36:40,520 Speaker 1: feel as though they're letting someone off scot free. So, 526 00:36:40,680 --> 00:36:44,760 Speaker 1: in this way, when a defendant with a psychosis shoots 527 00:36:44,800 --> 00:36:47,600 Speaker 1: somebody in the back, we can come to the slightly 528 00:36:47,760 --> 00:36:51,280 Speaker 1: more satisfying conclusion that he is guilty of the crime. 529 00:36:51,719 --> 00:36:55,640 Speaker 1: But there's another issue that requires consideration of the best 530 00:36:55,719 --> 00:37:01,080 Speaker 1: root forward. So how we phrase things matters. So where 531 00:37:01,160 --> 00:37:04,640 Speaker 1: is Andrea Yates today? Well, she still resides at the 532 00:37:04,719 --> 00:37:09,319 Speaker 1: Kerville State Hospital in Texas. Her husband, Rusty, went to 533 00:37:09,400 --> 00:37:13,279 Speaker 1: law school with the aim of improving the societal response 534 00:37:13,719 --> 00:37:17,920 Speaker 1: to the criminal behavior of mentally ill defendants and improving 535 00:37:17,920 --> 00:37:22,160 Speaker 1: the healthcare system for the mentally ill. Part of Andrea's 536 00:37:22,160 --> 00:37:26,520 Speaker 1: time in Kerville is devoted to craftmaking, the fruits of 537 00:37:26,560 --> 00:37:31,080 Speaker 1: which she sells anonymously at craft shows. Andrea donates the 538 00:37:31,120 --> 00:37:34,000 Speaker 1: majority of her earnings from the sales to the Yates 539 00:37:34,160 --> 00:37:39,080 Speaker 1: Children Memorial Fund. So to wrap up, we've been seeing 540 00:37:39,160 --> 00:37:43,920 Speaker 1: throughout these episodes how different people's internal models can be, 541 00:37:44,640 --> 00:37:49,240 Speaker 1: and therefore how different their realities can be. We've talked 542 00:37:49,280 --> 00:37:55,239 Speaker 1: elsewhere about synesthesia or a fantasia, or different levels of empathy, 543 00:37:55,600 --> 00:37:58,319 Speaker 1: or a hundred other ways that people can see the 544 00:37:58,360 --> 00:38:03,600 Speaker 1: world differently on some sort of spectrum. And for Andrea, 545 00:38:04,120 --> 00:38:08,200 Speaker 1: her internal model told her I believe quite genuinely that 546 00:38:08,440 --> 00:38:12,239 Speaker 1: her children were going to hell, and so she did 547 00:38:12,280 --> 00:38:16,839 Speaker 1: what she believed was the right thing given her reality. 548 00:38:17,480 --> 00:38:22,720 Speaker 1: And all of this emphasizes the complexity of putting together 549 00:38:23,239 --> 00:38:26,799 Speaker 1: billions of brains to work and live together in a 550 00:38:27,040 --> 00:38:36,040 Speaker 1: massive collaboration that we call society. Go to Eagleman dot 551 00:38:36,040 --> 00:38:39,920 Speaker 1: com slash podcast for more information and to find further reading. 552 00:38:41,120 --> 00:38:44,200 Speaker 1: Send me an email at podcasts at Eagleman dot com 553 00:38:44,239 --> 00:38:47,680 Speaker 1: with questions or discussions, and then making episodes in which 554 00:38:47,719 --> 00:38:54,080 Speaker 1: I address those until next time. I'm David Eagleman, and 555 00:38:54,120 --> 00:39:04,120 Speaker 1: this is Inner Cosmos.