A person I have known for many years is on trial for murder. This man is accused of murdering his wife who had also been both a colleague and a client of mine. Both the husband and the wife had struggled with addiction for many years. For times they were able to stay clean and sober and be high functioning members of the community. The man, Larry, had, after getting sober and clean finished college and became a licensed teacher. His wife, Sue, had been an addiction counselor and later owned and operated a restaurant. They had also raised two children.
It is alleged that Larry shot and killed his wife. She was shot three times –the brain, the face and back of the shoulder. The defense had suggested that she committed suicide although the nature of the wounds does not substantiate this claim. It has been suggested that both he and Sue had relapsed and were drinking at the time of the shooting. I have not seen any reports about what, if any alcohol or other drugs were in her system when she died.
Larry could be found innocent or convicted of murder or aggravated murder. He could not plead insanity. Even though it is generally recognized and accepted that addiction is a chronic disease, which is as vulnerable to relapse as diabetes or other illnesses, being under the influence is not, in and of itself, an accepted defense for a criminal act.
Legally, insanity is:
“n. Mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior. Insanity is distinguished from low intelligence or mental deficiency due to age or injury. If a complaint is made to law enforcement, to the District Attorney or to medical personnel that a person is evidencing psychotic behavior, he/she may be confined to a medical facility long enough (typically 72 hours) to be examined by psychiatrists who submit written reports to the local superior/county/district court. A hearing is then held before a judge, with the person in question entitled to legal representation, to determine if she/he should be placed in an institution or special facility. The person ordered institutionalized at the hearing may request a trial to determine sanity. Particularly since the original hearings are often routine with the psychiatric findings accepted by the judge. In criminal cases, a plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity" will require a trial on the issue of the defendant's insanity (or sanity) at the time the crime was committed. In these cases the defendant usually claims "temporary insanity" (crazy then, but okay now). The traditional test of insanity in criminal cases is whether the accused knew "the difference between right and wrong,"
following the "M'Naughten rule" from 19th century England. Most states require more sophisticated tests based on psychiatric and/or psychological testimony evaluated by a jury of laypersons or a judge without psychiatric training. A claim by a criminal defendant of his/her insanity at the time of trial requires a separate hearing to determine if a defendant is sufficiently sane to understand the nature of a trial and participate in his/her own defense. If found to be insane, the defendant will be ordered to a mental facility, and the trial will be held only if sanity returns. Sex offenders may be found to be sane for all purposes except the compulsive dangerous and/or antisocial behavior. They are usually sentenced to special facilities for sex offenders, supposedly with counseling available. However, there are often maximum terms related to the type of crime, so that parole and release may occur with no proof of cure of the compulsive desire to commit sex crimes.
As one can see it is very difficult to prove that someone does not know right from wrong if the question is asked when the person’s mental illness has been treated and stabilized even if that was the not case at the time of the behavior with which the person has been charged.
One can claim voluntary or involuntary intoxication. Involuntary intoxication would mean that someone had taken alcohol or other drugs without their knowledge, i.e. spiked their ice tea without their knowledge. The following information on criminal.findlaw.com clarifies the fact that normally voluntary intoxication is normally no excuse for committing a crime.
Voluntary Intoxication
People often claim that, because they were drunk or otherwise intoxicated when committing a crime, they shouldn't be punished for it. Generally, however, voluntary intoxication isn't an excuse for committing a crime, and second-degree murder is no different.
In some states, intoxication becomes a factor when determining degrees of homicides, though, so it is possible that a second-degree murder charge could be reduced on the basis of the defendant’s intoxication at the time of the slaying. This cuts both ways, however, and the defendant’s intoxication may also constitute an aggravating factor in the killing.
Now I personally find legal definition of insanity and the legal restriction on explaining or justifying a crime when intoxicated very confusing. If, in fact, addiction is a disease which results in one not being able to resist the persistent, powerful urge to drink or use another drug, eat more food, get more money or purchase more things, then one is in an ordinary sense insane. In fact many in the addiction field define insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results” As an addiction counselor I have known and currently know many very good people who clearly know right from wrong and consistently when not actively engaged in addictive behavior do the right/moral/ethical behavior. However, these same people, when under the control of their addiction, engage in behaviors, which are contrary to their value system. These people often express enormous regret and remorse for their behavior. Others hide their remorse from the “public” because they cannot admit to their shame and “keep it together”.
Larry is a man who often found it difficult to talk about his feelings. He had been treated for acute depression as well as addiction. His wife, Sue, had also been treated for depression and addiction. Both, when using and/or acutely depressed had difficulty and/or found it impossible to have what I would consider a logical/sane discussion.
I had been to their home to visit their family on several occasions. Sometimes Larry, Sue and the children all came for a family session in my office. If they were not drinking, using other drugs or in the grip of an acute depressive episode I felt comfortable taking Sam with me to visit them. Sam always enjoyed them and greeted all of them with generous hugs. Thus, it was not surprising when Sam asked me about Larry’s and the very public trial.
Sam: Everyone is saying that Larry is a bad person. Is Larry a bad person?
Me: No, Sam. I do not think Larry is a bad person. You knew that Larry and Sue both had problems. Remember we talked about that.
Sam: Everyone says that he killed Sue!
Me: That is apparently true from what we now know. That is very sad. We both loved Sue.
Sam: Yes (wiping away a tear), I miss Sue. We will never see her again will we.
Ms.: Well, some people believe that when we die we see all the people who died before we did, but no, we will not be able to visit he in the way we used to. You remember that we went to the funeral and saw them put her casket in the ground.
Sam: Yes. Is she cold in the ground?
Me: I don’t think she feels anything now Sam.
Sam: Is Larry going to prison?
Me: I don’t know but I think that he may be in prison for a long time.
Sam: But you said his mind was sick. If his mind were sick why would he go to prison?
Me: I don’t know Sam. Some people think that even though alcoholism is a disease that we can make a decision of whether or not to drink.
Sam: Like I can make a better decision to not eat candy before dinner.
Me: Exactly. You know how difficult that can be. That is why I have asked you to try telling your parents or me when you feel like eating candy before dinner.
Sam: Yes, sometimes I have done that and then I do not feel like eating candy. That is strange? Where does that feeling go?
Me: I agree that it is strange, but that is why some people go to those meetings attended with Joe.
Sam: That was fun. Everyone was really nice.
Me: I agree but Larry and Sue felt too bad to go to meetings or call someone some of the time.
Sam: Larry must feel very bad.
Me: I am sure he does. He is a good man. It cannot be fun in jail.
Sam: Could we make him a card and send to him? I bet that would make him smile.
Me: I am sure it would. Let’s get our box of art supplies!
As is always the case, Sam lets me know when she is ready to end the discussion for now. Often she later is ready to continue the discussion. We may find that she revisit many of the issues associated with this sad situation. Obviously many issues did not get addressed including the question of why Larry owned guns despite his history did not get addressed. I will have to do some thinking about how to respond to Sam should she ask about this.
RSS Feed