Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer was widely held to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia but his bid for a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict failed. Essentially, the jury accepted that he was...

Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer was widely held to suffer fromparanoid schizophrenia but his bid for a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict failed. Essentially, the jury accepted that he was schizophrenic but that he was still culpable for his behavior. Similarly, Andrea Yates, who drowned her five children in the bathtub, was purported to be schizophrenic by one of the court’s examining psychiatrists. She, too, was held accountable for her actions, failing an NGRI bid. Does this make sense to you? How can somebody be schizophrenicand in sufficient command of their mental capacities to be culpable for their actions?

Crucial to the Dahmer trial was his attempt to cover his crimes, indicating that he knew what he was doing was wrong, and his interactions with police, which showed his conduct was under his control. In the Yates case, her failure to seek the approval of others was seen as an indicator she knew her plan was wrong, and her waiting until she was alone with the children demonstrated she could control her actions. Should anyone who is schizophrenic have an automatic pass to NGRI out of criminal offenses? The definition of “insanity” is clearly spelled out in the law, and is located in detail in Chapter 17. For now, it suffices to explain that legal and psychiatric definitions of insanity are not isomorphic.