Author: Frankie Tarlizzo
Editor: Sophie Boes
Fall 2022
Although only used in 1% of all criminal cases, the insanity defense receives significant attention from both the legal system and the public eye. Although wide public interest reigns for this defense tactic, some of this interest stems from a very hostile place. Some say the insanity defense is simply a scapegoat for those who may not be criminally insane. At the same time, without it, many mentally disturbed criminals would fail to receive the help they need. The insanity defense raises another key ethical question: does being mentally “insane” excuse the harm a person has done?
For me, the answer has proved itself to be, time and time again, a matter of circumstance. Take Charles Whitman, a man with no history of mental illness, criminal activity, or violence. Yet, in August of 1966, he carried both guns and ammunition to the top of an observation deck on the University of Texas campus and opened fire on the people below, killing 13, before being shot and killed by police. It seems like a relatively open-and-shut case, right? Wrong. When police officers arrived at Whitman’s house later to investigate, they found the bodies of Charles’s wife and mother, both were brutally murdered on the morning of the shooting. The scene police found was not the only disturbing discovery found at the Whitman home, as police officers also obtained a suicide note written by Whitman, claiming:
“I don’t really understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average, reasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately (I can’t recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts.”
Along with various disturbing sentiments, Whitman requested the police autopsy his body after his death. The pathologist fulfilled his request, and the results shocked the world. It was discovered that Charles Whitman had a nickel-sized brain tumor pressing down on his amygdala, the area of the brain that directs emotional regulation, precisely emotions such as fear and aggression. Studies on amygdala damage and a deeper dive into Whitman’s life seem to point toward the tumor being the cause of these murders rather than criminal intent.
In cases like this, I believe the insanity defense shall be used, although Whitman did not survive enough to go to trial. It is applicable only when a perpetrator legitimately cannot understand AND control their actions. Mental illness encompasses a wide range of severity and symptoms, which makes the insanity defense so tricky, and being diagnosed with a mental illness may not be enough. For the insanity defense to be used, it should be proven that extreme incompetence and a lack of understanding of consequences are present. Unfortunately, we see too many cases of criminals attempting to claim insanity as a last-ditch attempt to defend themselves, which threatens the adequacy of the insanity defense.
Take the case of Lee Robin, for example. On the morning of August 13th, 1988, Lee Robin sat on the steps of his living room after carrying out the vicious axe murder of his wife and drowning his young daughter. He was covered in blood from the waist down and told the police the locations of the bodies upon arrival. Unlike the Whitman case, Robin was able to go to trial, where he was found not guilty by reasons of insanity and ordered to carry out his sentence in a mental facility.
Lee Robin had a history of depression, which had worsened after the birth of his child Denise, and allegedly told his psychiatrist of intense delusions and irrational thoughts weeks before the murder. Robin even went so far as begging his wife to leave him and take their child and trying to end his own life a week before the murder. These factors undoubtedly point to severe mental illness. However, it is also crucial to note that Robin was a doctor, a medical professional who, while not at all immune to mental illness, may have had the medical knowledge to understand the severity of his symptoms (although this is not proven). His begging of his wife and children to leave him also may indicate that Robin did recognize his desire to kill and tried to save his family, although this attempt was short-lived.
Although I do think that Robin’s sentence should have been slightly shorter, and he could have spent some of his time healing in a psychiatric facility due to his evident mental anguish, I also believe that he was aware of the weight of his actions and desires and cannot be acquitted of homicide charges. Speculators claim Robin was faking the entire thing, and while that is possible, it is not probable. The point remains, however, that insanity is an aspect of the law that cannot be fully proven, making it so challenging to analyze in the first place. This is a dangerous concept, and in such cases, it may have led to a lack of justice being served. While I am not making a case for the retraction of the insanity defense in the legal system, I think its use should be more limited and more harshly evaluated.
References
Chicagoreader. “Is This Man a Monster?” Chicago Reader, 20 Aug. 2021,
Eagleman, David. “The Brain on Trial.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 1 Aug. 2018,
Kommentarer