House lawmakers will soon consider a plan to change New Hampshire?s policy on insanity defenses. The measure would take away a defendant?s ability to plea not guilty by reason of insanity. Instead, allowing them to plea guilty but insane.
The proposal is the brainchild of father and son Republicans Marshall and Matthew Quandt. The Exeter duo introduced the measure at the behest of a constituent who considers the notion of not guilty by reason of insanity a sham. The Quandts themselves don?t go quite that far, but Marshall Quandt says his 27 years as a probation officer taught him the insanity defense can be abused, and that it?s high time the state reconsider it?s efficacy.
'The bottom line concern is that we need to take a look at what we are doing. We do things for years and years and then something happens and then we say lets take a look at what we?re doing. And this vehicle is the lets take a look at what we are doing.'
Quandts ?look at what we are doing? would also require the convicted serve 25 percent of their original sentence in a state prison if they are ever deemed sane by state doctors. According to Quandt, such a change would discourage convicts from feigning mental illness to remain out of prison.
'We have people that take insanity pleas that go to whatever treatment programs an they stay there and if they know they?ll have to do twenty five percent of their time upon release then maybe they?ll want to be released a little earlier to get through the remaining twenty five percent of their time.'
Currently 13 states have some variant of the guilty but insane plea. Ron Honberg, legal director for the National association of the mentally ill, believes such laws are misguided. He argues they punish people for having a medical condition that preclude them from being responsible for their actions. Honberg says the trend towards such laws is a relatively recent one, and largely driven by public outcry whenever high profile defendants have claimed insanity.
'The Hinckley case for example?.The first mentally ill but guilty statues were enacted when Hinckley was found not guilty by reasons of insanity.'
Whether or not such provisions actually have an effect on crime is tough to determine, partially because the insanity defense is rarely attempted..It?s tried in one quarter of one percent of nationwide felony cases??And enjoys a less than 30% success rate.?..But Manchester lawyer Richard McNamara, who served in the Attorney General?s office duning the 1970s, says arguments against the provision extend beyond numbers. McNamara says they reflect a too cynical view of both psychiatry and the legal process. To say nothing of denying realties he says any state prosecutor knows well.
'There are people who are insane who commit violent crimes, there are some very sad cases, and New Hampshire juries do a very good job sorting out who is insane and who is not.'
McNamara?s trust in statejuries is also reflected in the state courts themselves. New Hampshire is unique nationally in giving juries total freedom to determine what constitutes insanity. McNamara says the lack of standards hasn?t made acquittal by reason of insanity any more likely ? even if both sides agree.
'There?s a NH Supreme Court case that I handled in 1980 in which the eveidece was uncondrictied, the state?s psy and the def?s psy both found the defendant was insane and the jury found them sane. And the court upheld it.'
According to another former state prosecutor, Charles Putnam, the high court will likely be weighing in on the Quandts? proposal should it become law in it?s current form. Putnam says as written, it raises a fundamental problem.
'The question is whether or not those provisions that would appear to try to repeal statutory provision relating to the insanity defense would be consistent with part I article 15 of the NH const which expressly recognizes an insanity defense in New Hampshire criminal cases.'
But Constitutional questions aside, Representative Quandt is confident his bill?s intent is sufficiently popular to ensure his proposal will reach the house floor in one form or another.
'People will come forward and say this isn?t good about it or this is god about it, and we?ll be able to hopefully blend something and take a look at what?s happening now and see if it does in fact need to be changed.'
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo