|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kavin
L. Edwards
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Kavin
L. Edwards is senior majoring
in legal communications with a
minor in psychology. He has graduate
educational interest in law, psychology,
philosophy, and divinity. Kavin
is a member of the NAACP, the
Howard University Community Choir,
the Martin Luther King, Jr. Forensic
Society, the Noonday Prayer Leadership
Team, and plays intramural basketball.
His mentor is Dr. Jules Harrell,
Psychology.
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
A
Conflict of Interest: Mental
Illness vs. Legal Insanity.
Kavin L. Edwards; Dr.
Jules P. Harrell; Howard University,
Washington, DC.
The insanity plea is one area
in which the two distinct
disciplines of law and psychiatry
meet. However, because these
two disciplines have different
primary interests the merger
between the two has not been
a simple one. For example,
the law in essence ought to
be primarily concerned with
ensuring that justice is rendered
on every possible occasion,
while psychiatry on the other
hand has one of its primary
concerns on correctly diagnosing
ill persons and treating the
same. Great trouble arises
when these two subject areas
are forced to act in concert
with one another and still
remain true to the manifest
tenor of their own disciplines.
A plea of insanity is one
such occasion upon which law
and psychiatry must play their
own music and hope for sweet
harmony.
The problem that oftentimes
impedes the sweet harmony
sought after is complex. In
order for the law to uphold
its part of the rhythm, the
law may take into consideration
all the persons and things
that are involved (i.e., the
accused, the victim, family,
friends, and the law itself
- precedents). Similarly,
there are certain factors
that psychiatry must take
into consideration in making
its determination of a persons
mental health (i.e., brain
defects or dysfunction, medical
history of the accused, and
factors surrounding the crime
committed). Both the objectives
of law and psychiatry are
noble in their intentions.
However, when forced to stand
and function in the same arena,
the objectives of law and
psychiatry can sometimes become
adversarial in nature.
For, if the interests of the
accused are preserved and
served through the objective
of psychiatry, then the law
and parties close to the victim
may decry that a grievous
injustice has been performed
against them when the accused
is found not guilty by reason
of insanity. Nevertheless,
before we render judgment
as to whose interests are
preserved and whose are not,
we will begin by first covering
some fundamentals of our task,
namely,
-
comparing the definitions
of mental illness as found
in DSM-II through DSM-IV;
-
taking a historical look
at some of the applicable
rules to the insanity defense;
-
clearing up some of the
misconceptions surrounding
the insanity defense; and
-
analyzing
the case of United States
v. Williams. Ultimately
we will know whether the
definition of mental illness
has a significant impact
on the insanity issue in
the courts.
|
|
|
|