Does insanity plea change the nature of the crime?

Frontiersman editorial board

Two people convicted of committing murder in Alaska are challenging the state's definition of insanity as it applies to criminal cases. Cynthia Lord, who murdered her three sons to save them from the evil of the world, and Mark Rocereta, who murdered a stranger, believing the other man was planning to kill him, believe they should have been found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Alaska's insanity requirement says that the accused need only understand that s/he is killing another human, and that s/he understands that killing is wrong. Even if the person is under the delusion that the killing is necessary, or if the defendant is unable to control the urge to murder, he or she is still guilty in Alaska.

The insanity plea has a long history of controversy, and much of that likely results from an apparent conflict. The court has two responsibilities that can seem at odds -- to punish the guilty, but also to protect the rights of the accused innocent. American justice operates from the premise that criminal defendants are innocent until proven guilty, and thus they must be afforded their full complement of civil rights.

The insanity defense can cloud people's perceptions of guilt. If murder, short of self-defense, is a crime, how can someone who has clearly committed murder not be guilty? This question becomes central to the argument, because defendants found innocent by reason of insanity or guilty but mentally ill normally are released from treatment much earlier than defendants who are found guilty.

If the argument is that Alaska's narrow definition of insanity denies defendants an important defense option, limiting their civil rights, it cannot be made without considering the civil rights of the victims, their families and the general public. Sentencing for crimes is intended not only to punish the guilty, but also to protect society. If Alaska's litmus test for insanity is made less stringent, it should only come with requirements that also provide for reasonable punishment for serious crimes, and for public safety.

It is true that insanity can limit a person's ability to make rational decisions, but it is also true that violent crime should not be tolerated, no matter the reason. Murderers found to be insane should receive the same penalty as anyone else, but should also be guaranteed adequate treatment for their illness.