Abstract
The following is an Insanity Assessment of an actual court case done for a university course. In the following analysis, the defendant was being tried for rape and sexual recidivism of a former colleague. The victim had been the object of the defendant’s obsession and unwanted advances for months prior to the incident.
A chance encounter at a gas station had pushed the defendant over the edge. He had proceeded to abduct the victim and engage in gross criminality. The defendant had been arrested during the act and admitted his culpability. However, during the subsequent trial, he pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
Psychological Analysis
The court summary of facts strongly indicates that the defendant is, or was at the time of the crime, afflicted by a diagnosable mental dysfunction. The defendant’s psychological symptoms (e.g., depressive state) and consequent behaviors (e.g., quitting his job) are indicative of DSM-5 Depressive Disorders.
During the brutal act of sexual recidivism, the defendant’s general mental state was indicative of major depressive disorder (MDD) (i.e., clinical depression). Clinically, the more specific diagnosis applicable to the defendant’s condition was a major depressive episode (MDE). Additionally, psychotic tendencies (e.g., delusions) were a part of the defendant’s overall psychopathology.
In addition to MDD, the DSM-5 category of Depressive Disorders consists of seven other psychopathologies. The binding facet of all depressive disorders is the presence of an empty, petulant mindset, accompanied by physical and mental degeneration (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013).
The DSM-5’s diagnostic classification of a major depressive disorder is conceptualized by five subsets or Criteria – A, B, C, D, and E. Each of the five subsets, with their attendant symptoms and indicator markers, narrows the scope of MDD’s diagnostic assessments. Criteria A, B, and C of MDD diagnosis are indicative of a major depressive episode (APA, 2013).
The latter two Criteria – D and E – further exemplify the clinical attributes of the MDD phenomena. The diagnostic standards for MDD, as outlined by DSM-5, consist of several symptoms.
They include depressed mood, dwindling interest or anhedonia, unintended weight loss or weight gain, difficulty sleeping or idiopathic hypersomnia, psychomotor agitation or retardation, tiredness or diminished energy, a sense of worthlessness or guiltiness, reduced cognition or indecisiveness, and last but not least suicidal ideation (APA, 2013).
The aforementioned depressive symptoms are part of Criterion A of a major depressive disorder. Additional directives of Criterion A include the prevalence of five or more of the above symptoms persistent for at least two-week duration. Also, at least one of the five predictive symptoms ascribed to both MDE and MDD must include depressive mood or diminished interest/anhedonia (APA, 2013).
Moreover, in accordance with Criterion B, the singular or cumulative effect of the MDD symptoms must lead to clinically significant impairments in everyday functioning. Additionally, as mandated by Criterion C, the associated symptoms of depressive episodes cannot be attributed to substance abuse or other somatic or psychological maladies (APA, 2013).
Furthermore, in accordance with Criterion D, the distinctive characteristics ascribed to MDE cannot be more descriptive of psychotic disorders (e.g., schizophrenia) (APA, 2013). Lastly, in accordance with Criterion E, manic/hypomanic episodes are asymptomatic of MDD (APA, 2013). An accompanying manic state to the aforementioned depressive symptoms would swing the diagnostic pendulum of DSM-5 from depressive psychopathologies to Bipolar disorders.
Diagnostic Assessment
The assessment of the defendant’s mental health during the sexual assault indicates that his degree of psychological impairment satisfies DSM-5’s criteria for mental illness. From the time of the defendant’s infatuation with the victim to the moment leading up to his callous criminality, he’d been increasingly plagued by intrapsychic conflicts and social rejection.
The additive effects in their totality lay dormant for a time, incubating within the defendant’s psyche, and eventually came to fruition as psychopathology. The defendant’s relatively abrupt cognitive deterioration and gradual psych-regression towards a depressive state were further facilitated by demand characteristics (e.g., the stripers were reminiscent of the victim).
Furthermore, it was the sight of the victim that pushed the effects of the mental problems to a crescendo, subsequently triggering dormant criminality.
The defendant’s psychological dysfunction at the time of the assault was highlighted by most of the mitigating symptoms outlined in Criteria -A of MDD diagnosis. A list of the symptoms that exemplified the defendant’s condition as a major depressive episode is described in the following paragraph. A1. Depressed mood; the onset was marked by the victim’s firm rejection of the defendant’s advances.
This resulted in his compulsive behavior of quitting his job and subsequent emotions of loneliness, sadness, and emptiness. A2. Loss of interest or anhedonia; caused by the defendant’s deviant fixation on the victim. The victim became the defendant’s singular obsession and the focal point for all interests and pleasure. The defendant became disinterested in all social activities.
A3. Unintended weight loss; distress resonating from the defendant’s mental deterioration led to the loss of appetite and inevitably to weight loss. A4. Insomnia; the defendant’s sleep cycle was reduced to only a few hours a night. A5. Psychomotor agitation was visible in the defendant’s anxious and jittery state outlined in the report. A7. Feeling worthless; was caused by intense self-rumination and the inability to obtain the victim’s affection.
A8. Cognitive deterioration: indicated by the defendant’s racing state of mind and illogical and nonsensical speech. A9. Suicidal ideation; the defendant’s negative perceptions of self-worth and decline in self-esteem led to recurring suicidal thoughts.
The duration of most of the defendant’s symptoms had been persistent for more than two weeks, including the DSM-5 indicators of depressed mood and loss of interest. Additionally, the diagnostic hallmark of major depressive disorders is the presence of weight loss and reoccurring thoughts of suicide (lecture).
The latter two depressive symptoms were both symptomatic of the defendant’s condition. Furthermore, in compliance with Criteria B, the cumulative effect of the depressive symptoms caused a functional impairment for the defendant on a personal, social, and occupational level.
In compliance with Criterion C, the defendant’s failing mental state was unrelated to drugs or alcohol, and his condition lacked other significant medical malfunctions. Moreover, in accordance with Criterion D, despite vague indicators of psychosis, the defendant’s overall depressive symptoms were not characteristic of psychotic disorders.
Lastly, in fulfillment of Criteria E, the defendant did not suffer from mania. The above diagnostic assessment, in compliance with DSM-5 guidelines, distinguishes the defendant’s condition as a major depressive episode; and, possibly, a major depressive disorder.
The indicator that may call this diagnosis into question is the presence of borderline psychotic features. It seems that the defendant was mildly delusional at times. For example, despite the victim’s indications to the contrary, the defendant believed that her feelings would change once she got to know him.
Additionally, the defendant attributed the chance encounter with the victim at the gas station to fate. The existence of psychotic tendencies in MDD assessments may be a foretelling of schizophrenic/psychotic disorder (APA, 2013).
In addition, the sporadic onsets of some bipolar conditions are at times also marked by major depressive episodes (APA, 2013). Nonetheless, the evolution of the defendant’s psychopathology towards a psychotic or bipolar orientation is irrelevant to the legal question. Forensic insanity assessments focus on the person’s mental state at the time of the crime.
Legal Analysis
In the state of Delaware, where this crime took place, the insanity standard employed by the Justice System is the ALI Test: American Legal Institute Test. The ALI Test incorporates both cognitive/affective and volitional criteria for criminal insanity assessments. The defendant must satisfy only one of the two criteria to be found legally insane.
The cognitive/affective criterion of the ALI Test mandates that as a result of the impact of the mental disorder, the person must lack comprehension or appreciation of the criminality of the act. The three-prong approaches for cognitive assessments are described as follows: 1st prong – is the presence of psychopathology at the time of the crime, 2nd prong – is the inability to comprehend the nature and quality of the crime, 3rd prong – is ignorance of right from wrong (Huss, 2014).
The emphasis of the volitional criteria is on self-control, especially impulse control. The volitional criterion of the ALI Test also consists of three indicators. The 1st prong measures the level of self-control over one’s behavior and choices during the crime.
The 2nd prong assesses if the crime was premeditated. The 3rd prong focuses on the defendant’s actions to avoid detection or capture. The failure to meet at least one of the two criteria of the ALI Test disqualifies the defendant from being legally insane.
Insanity is a legally defined term referring to a defendant’s psychological state during the crime. Insanity assessments focus on the defendant’s Mens Rea (i.e., evil mind), the 2nd element of Corpus Delicti (i.e., the body of crime).
The Insanity Calculus federally exemplifies the construct of legal insanity. There are three facets to the Insanity Calculus. The first facet requires the presence of debilitating psychopathology during the criminal act. The second facet necessitates that the cause of criminality must be directly attributed to the mental disorder (i.e., the disorder caused the person to act criminally).
The third facet requires that the correlation between the act and psychopathology conform to the legal test’s specificities.
Applied Analysis
The assessment of the defendant’s insanity under the cognitive/affective criterion of the ALI Test quickly refutes his claim for several reasons. Although the defendants’ diagnosis of clinical depression satisfies the 1st prong of the cognitive criteria, it is inconsistent with the standards of the 2nd prong.
For instance, while a depressed mood can lead to psychological impairment, it does not lead to cognitive distortions indicative of psychosis. The 3rd prong of the cognitive criteria is also not met. The defendant acknowledged that during the sexual assault, he knew that his actions were ‘wrong.’ Moreover, he took responsibility for his actions during his arrest by telling the arresting officers he ‘did it.’
The volitional criteria of the ALI Test grant more validity to the defendant’s claim but also fall short of finding him legally insane. The defendant’s condition meets the 2nd and 3rd prongs of the volitional criteria. There is no evidence of premeditation or an attempt by the defendant to avoid arrest.
He did not resist the arresting officers and went as far as admitting his guilt. However, the defendant falls relatively short of fulfilling the 1st indicators. The defendant failed to meet the 1st volitional prong because his behavior was goal-directed.
Several premises support this position. First, his actions were not random but directed toward the object of his obsession (i.e., the victim). He overpowered the victim and forced her into his car instead of attempting to rape her at the gas station. He drove the victim to a secluded alley where his actions had less of a chance of being seen or prevented by a Good Samaritan.
He then proceeded to rape the victim despite her pleas, distress, and protest. Additionally, he was conscious of his actions during the entire ordeal. The sequence of evidence from the time of the victim’s abduction to the time of the defendant’s arrest shows a clear indication of volitional control which disqualifies the defendant from fulfilling this criterion.
Conclusion
The defendant’s failure to satisfy either the cognitive /affective or the volitional criteria of the ALI Legal Test disqualifies him from being legally insane. Thus, under the judicial guidelines of the state of Delaware and based on the assessment standard of the ALI legal test, the defendant cannot be declared insane and is legally competent to stand trial.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Major depressive disorder. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.
Huss, T.M., (2014). Forensic Psychology: research, clinical practice, and application. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Free eBook
Thirty East Stress-Killers
