HU HOME | CALENDARS | DIRECTORIES
Graduate School Howard University
Home History Components Why a PH.D? Scholars Mentors Staff Perks Resources
Scholars> 1996 - 1997
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 person’s 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,

  1. comparing the definitions of mental illness as found in DSM-II through DSM-IV;
  2. taking a historical look at some of the applicable rules to the insanity defense;
  3. clearing up some of the misconceptions surrounding the insanity defense; and
  4. 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.

4th and College Streets,  NW,  
Washington DC 20059   
Tel.:(202)- 806 - 6800
Fax.:(202)- 462 - 4053
© 2003 Howard University, all rights reserved. WWW Disclaimer