Verified by 
What will be the fate of James Holmes? About three years ago he shot moviegoers at a premiere screening of Batman in Colorado. Holmes acknowledges killing 12 people and wounding 70 more in this horrible attack. As for his defense, he has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI).
The defense of insanity is probably the most controversial issue in all criminal law. Academics tend to support the insanity defense, but the public often expresses dissatisfaction with it.
According to the criminal law doctrine, individuals found NGRI are not punishable as criminals. But is it realistic to expect society not to feel vengeful toward persons who, at the time of the offense, “did not know what they were doing” or “could not help themselves?”
In this case, it will be up to prosecutors in Colorado to prove that Holmes did know what he was doing and that he could help himself – to get a guilty conviction. Putting the burden of proof on prosecutors to prove sanity is unique to the Centennial state. Typically, the burden falls on the defense to prove insanity.
Although I am not involved in the Holmes criminal case, I have served as an expert for both the prosecution and defense in other NGRI criminal cases. Experts preparing an opinion on Holmes’ mental state at the time of the offense will address 3 areas: 1) determination of the presence of a mental disease or defect; 2) the relationship between the mental disease or defect and the criminal behavior; 3) whether the defendant’s mental state at the time of the crime satisfies the jurisdictional criteria for the insanity defense.
The general public tends to correlate mental illness with extreme violence. But this often comes from a distorted view of insanity cases that tend to garner extensive media coverage.
The truth is that people with mental illness are not more likely to be violent. As for those individuals who were violent but acquitted as NGRI, studies show that they are less likely as a group to commit future acts of violence than felons, as a group.
In the coming weeks jurors will be deliberating on the question of Holmes’ sanity. NGRI is an infrequent defense and rarely successful. At its core, insanity is a legal concept that reflects community attitudes about who should be excused by reason of mental illness.
This court case will undoubtedly be charged with intense emotions. And when it comes to a trial by jury, for such a heinous offense, the specific criteria for insanity often has little impact on the outcome. At this point, justice is in the hands of the jury.
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HelenMFarrellMD
Check out my forthcoming TEDx talk: www.ted.com/profiles/3674816
References:
Giorgi-Guarnieri, D., Janofsky, J., Keram, E., et al. AAPL Practice Guideline for Forensic Psychiatry Evaluation of Defendants Raising the Insanity Defense. Journal of Am Acad Psych and Law. Vol 30, S3-S40 (supplement) 2002.
Melton, GB., Petrila, J., Poythress, NG., Slobogin, C. Psychological Evaluations for the Courts. 3rd edition. Guilford Press, NY, London. 2007, 201-205.
Resnick, PJ. The Insanity Defense: A Historical Perspective and Modern Application. Annual Forensic Psychiatry Review Course. Tucson, AZ. 2010.
