Split Sciences: The Legal Accountability of Patients With Dissociative Identity Disorder

The thriller “Split” by M. Night Shyamalan showed a glimpse into the multiple personalities of the antagonist in the film. While many elements were added for intense suspense, the existence of such a disorder was factual. Dissociative Identity Disorder is defined by the American Psychiatric Association as a “psychological illness with 2 or more distinct identities, each accompanied by changes in behavior, memory, and thinking” (American Psychiatric Association). In a legal setting, the actions of the patients with DID have numerous ramifications. This paper aims to illustrate how the accountability of DID patients during a crime should be assessed. To find out how DID patients could be held accountable, we analyzed the disorder by researching the transformations in the brain, identified its origins, and explored the consequences in a judicial milieu. After conducting this research, we identified the solution that could be seamlessly embedded into our current society and benefit the patient as well as the courts. Through the analysis of the psychological disorder with a social lens, we evaluated that the jury and the public should be made more aware of the disorder and the court should not automatically assume innocence based on just the Insanity Defense. This plan is the best course of action for patients and the court systems and also aims to adapt societal thought to be more aware of DID’s difficulties.

Limitations Using Neuroimaging to Reconstruct Mental State After a Crime

Neuroimaging offers great potential to clinicians and researchers for a host of mental and physical conditions. The use of imaging has been trumpeted for forensic psychiatric and psychological evaluations to allow greater insight into the relationship between the brain and behavior. The results of imaging certainly can be used to inform clinical diagnoses; however, there continue to be limitations in using neuroimaging for insanity cases due to limited scientific backing for how neuroimaging can inform retrospective evaluations of mental state. In making this case, this paper reviews the history of the insanity defense and explains how the use of neuroimaging is not an effective way of improving the reliability of insanity defense evaluations.

#AbolishNCR: A Qualitative Analysis of Social Media Narratives around the Insanity Defense

This article presents an analysis of social media posts by laypersons regarding a finding of Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) for Matthew de Grood after a high-profile trial in 2016 in Canada. From trial to verdict, a total of 4,991 tweets relating to the case were harvested from Twitter. Qualitative content analysis of 365 tweets by laypersons revealed three themes – largely equating the insanity defense to a legal loophole: (1) The case exemplified a misappropriation of the legal defense (e.g., due to privilege, due to the seriousness of the offence); (2) The perception existed that the NCRMD defence is a miscarriage of justice; (3) Many comments reflected a search for answers and justice. These embodied the ABCs of NCRMD: advocating, blaming, and clarifying. A need for public education about the forensic psychiatric system is evident; misconceptions about the insanity defence appeared pervasive. Further research could focus on the efficacy of knowledge translation over new media channels, such as Twitter.

Incompetence, Psychopathy, and Fair Opportunity

Fair opportunity supports a modified version of the Model Penal Code insanity test, against the narrower M’Naghten test. The Andrea Yates case is introduced as a paradigmatic insanity defense. Recent arguments that psychopaths should be excused because their psychological deficits prevent them from developing cognitive competence about moral norms are considered and rejected. Moral blindspots involving selective discrimination raise questions about selective incompetence. In general, the selective nature of these blindspots implies that agents with blindspots have the capacity to correct their moral ignorance and so should not be excused.

Murderous Racism as Normal Psychosis: The Case of Dylann Roof

Dylann Roof killed nine people in a Black church in 2015 in order to start a “war” between the white and Black races. This case is used here to develop a psychoanalytic theory of murderous racism, and even genocide. Major concepts from Freud (self-preservation, hatred, narcissism, life and death drives, delusion), Klein (projective identification), and Bion (psychotic and nonpsychotic parts of the personality) are employed. Particular attention is given to the hearing to determine Roof’s capacity to represent himself after he dismissed his lawyers, who wanted to use an insanity defense to avoid the death penalty. This hearing was confronted with an undecidable dilemma, which led to legal cooperation with Roof’s suicidal impulses. The deconstructive approach to undecidability, and its use in questions of law, especially as concerns the relation between psychoanalysis and the death penalty, leads to tentative recommendations for the prevention of racist murder.