Examining the Variables: Post-Mortem Dismemberment Cases and the Insanity Defense

Samuel Gilligan^*
*Correspondence: Samuel Gilligan, Department of Mental Health, Boston College, Boston, MA, USA, Email:

Keywords

Post-mortem dismemberment • Insanity defense • Legal strategy • Sexual gratification

Introduction

Post-mortem dismemberment is a rare and disturbing crime that can be committed for a variety of reasons. In some cases, the perpetrator may be motivated by sexual gratification, anger, or revenge. In other cases, the perpetrator may have a mental illness that contributed to the crime. The insanity defense is a legal strategy that can be used to argue that a defendant is not criminally responsible for their actions due to a mental illness. In order to successfully use the insanity defense, the defendant must prove that they were suffering from a mental illness at the time of the crime, that the mental illness prevented them from understanding the nature and quality of their actions, or that the mental illness prevented them from knowing that their actions were wrong [1].

Literature Review

The insanity defense is a legal tactic that can be used to argue that a person with a mental illness was not responsible for their actions. The defendant must demonstrate that they were suffering from a mental illness at the time of the crime and that this illness prevented them from understanding the nature and quality of their actions or from knowing that their actions were wrong in order to use the insanity defense effectively. A growing body of evidence points to a possible connection between mental illness and postmortem dismemberment. A number of people who have been found guilty of post-mortem dismemberment, for instance, have a history of mental illness, particularly schizophrenia, according to one study. Nevertheless, it is essential to keep in mind that not all individuals who engage in post-mortem dismemberment are mentally ill. This kind of crime may be committed by some for sexual pleasure or as a means of expressing rage or vengeance [2,3]. In studies of cases involving post-mortem dismemberment, the following are some of the variables that have been investigated:

Ailment mental: As previously stated, a growing body of research points to a possible connection between mental illness and post-mortem dismemberment.

Motivation: Post-mortem dismemberment can have a variety of reasons. This kind of crime may be committed by some for sexual pleasure or as a means of expressing rage or vengeance.

Merits of the perpetrator: Post-mortem dismemberment perpetrators are frequently men with a violent past. Additionally, they may have a history of substance abuse or mental illness.

Characteristics of a victim: The victims of post-mortem dismemberment are typically women who are acquainted with the offender.

Characteristics of the crime scene: In a post-mortem dismemberment case, the scene of the crime is frequently horrifying and may contain evidence of torture or mutilation.

The insanity defense is a legal tactic that can be used to argue that a person with a mental illness was not responsible for their actions. The defendant must demonstrate that they were suffering from a mental illness at the time of the crime and that this illness prevented them from understanding the nature and quality of their actions or from knowing that their actions were wrong in order to use the insanity defense effectively. There is no assurance that a defendant will prevail in court if they use the insanity defense, which is a contentious legal issue. However, a defendant may be found not guilty on the grounds of insanity if they can demonstrate that they were insane at the time of the crime [4].

Discussion

In cases of post-mortem dismemberment, the insanity defense's efficacy is unknown. The insanity defense is more likely to be successful in cases of post-mortem dismemberment when the perpetrator is mentally ill, according to some studies. However, other research has shown that post-mortem dismemberment cases do not have a higher success rate for the insanity defense than other types of crimes [5]. According to a study conducted by the University of California, Berkeley, when the offender had a mental illness, the insanity defense was successful in 25% of cases of post-mortem dismemberment. However, a different study conducted by the University of Michigan found that the insanity defense was only successful in 10% of all post-mortem dismemberment cases [6].

Conclusion

Post-mortem dismemberment is a disturbing but rare crime that can occur for a number of different reasons. In cases of post-mortem dismemberment, the insanity defense's efficacy is unknown. The effectiveness of the insanity defense in these cases and the factors that contribute to this crime require further investigation. A number of factors can affect whether a defendant in a post-mortem dismemberment case is found not guilty due to insanity. The nature of the dismemberment, the defendant's mental state at the time of the crime, and the defendant's previous criminal history are all examples of these variables. It is vital to take note of that the madness safeguard is an undeniably challenging protection to win. The defendant must demonstrate that they were unable to recognize the error of their ways at the time of the crime as a result of a mental illness or defect in order to be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest by author.

References

1. Arenella, Peter. “Reflections on current proposals to abolish or reform the insanity defense.”Am J Law Med8 (1982): 271-284.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Black, Sue, Guy Rutty, Sarah V. Hainsworth and Grant Thomson.“Criminal dismemberment: Forensic and investigative analysis.” CRC Press (2017).

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Chan, Heng Choon and Feng Li. “Victim body mutilation in sexual homicides: Exploring Chinese sexual homicide cases.”Behav Sci Law37 (2019): 589-601.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Häkkänen‐Nyholm, Helinä, Ghitta Weizmann‐Henelius, Stephan Salenius and Nina Lindberg, et al. “Homicides with mutilation of the victim’s body.”J Forensic Sci 54 (2009): 933-937.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Roberts, Caton F., Stephen L. Golding and Frank D. Fincham. “Implicit theories of criminal responsibility: Decision making and the insanity defense.”Law Hum Behav 11 (1987): 207-232.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

6. Konopka, Tomasz, Marcin Strona, Filip Bolechala and Jerzy Kunz. “Corpse dismemberment in the material collected by the department of forensic medicine, Cracow, Poland.” Leg Med 9 (2007): 1-13.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at