In Defense of Cultural “Insanity”: Using Insanity as a Proxy for Culture in Criminal Cases

Courts in the United States do not recognize a formal “cultural defense” for criminal acts committed by defendants belonging to other cultures. This means that courts ostensibly do not take foreign cultural practices, customs, or beliefs into account in evaluating the guilt of individuals who break U.S. laws. Nonetheless, courts have repeatedly permitted cultural evidence to be introduced as an explanation for criminal behavior, though not explicitly in furtherance of a cultural defense. Instead, such evidence of cultural practices, customs, and beliefs is introduced under the guise of a myriad of other traditional legal defenses including, among others, the focus of this Note — the insanity defense. Invoking the insanity defense in cultural cases troubles many critics; the defendants in these cases are rarely clinically insane — or at least would not be considered insane by those from the same culture as the defendant — and thus invoking an insanity defense may equate a defendant’s culture with mental illness or defect. This Note weighs the advantages and disadvantages of employing the insanity defense in cultural cases and argues that the insanity defense can serve as an effective (albeit imperfect) proxy for a formal cultural defense. Absent a formal cultural defense, the insanity defense allows defendants to demonstrate that they lacked the required mens rea to be held culpable for their alleged crimes. Furthermore, this Note argues that the American Psychiatric Association’s newest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders can provide courts with helpful guidelines for contextualizing cultural issues in psychiatric diagnoses.