This is a short essay I wrote for my Seminar in Courts and Sentencing class. My instructor asked us to write about the insanity defense, and I chose to focus on the infamous case of John Wayne Gacy.
Paper #1: Mental Health Issues
Christmastime in Chicago in 1978 was anything but idyllic. Little did everyone know, the world was about to be turned upside down, beginning on the fateful night of December 20th. Throughout the night, a young lawyer named Sam Amirante realized that his life was never going to be the same. Unbeknownst to him, one of the most notorious serial killers in history was now his client, a man named John Wayne Gacy. Gacy was indicated for the murders of 33 young men and was subsequently convicted in March of 1980. At the time, Gacy was the only person in history to be charged with the highest number of victims for a single individual. It was obvious to everyone that this man was not “normal,” but was he, “insane?”
The primary strategy of the defense for John Wayne Gacy became the insanity defense, which has been controversial since John Hinckley Jr. was acquitted and found not guilty by reason of insanity. The content of the public outcry was that this was a loophole that existed in the criminal justice system that allowed a guilty person to escape punishment (Public Broadcasting Service). The M’Naughten Rule was the basis of the insanity defense after Daniel M’Naughten attempted to assassinate the prime minister in England in 1843, and it determined that, “a defendant should not be held responsible for his actions if he could not tell that his actions were wrong at the time he committed them (Public Broadcasting Service)”.
The insanity defense has remained controversial throughout its history, but it is seldom successful. According to the Public Broadcasting Service, the insanity defense is raised in less than one percent of felony cases and is successful in only a small percent of cases. According to the Illinois statute, “A person is not criminally responsible for conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or mental defect, he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct, and a person who, at the time of the commission of a criminal offense, was not insane but was suffering from a mental illness, is not relieved of criminal responsibility for his conduct and may be found guilty but mentally ill (Illinois Statute, 720 ILCS 5/6-2).”
Over the course of the trial, it was difficult to anyone to reasonably contest Gacy’s guilt in the murders. However, the presence of Mr. Gacy’s supposed episodes of insanity while the crimes were committed were brought to the trial by the defense. Several psychologists testified to the insanity defense of Mr. Gacy, with examples of variance in their testimony. Dr. Leonard Heston had diagnosed Gacy as an antisocial personality, but that he did not suffer from psychosis. Dr. A. Arthur Hartman testified his opinion that Gacy never suffered a disease of the psychotic type, and that he was sane, able to conform his conduct to law, and that he was able to appreciate the criminality of his actions (People of the State of Illinois vs. John Gacy: The Functioning of the Insanity Defense at the Limits of the Criminal Law, 86 W. Va. L. Rev. (1984.) According to Dr. Robert A. Reifman, Gacy had a narcissistic personality type, but that this was not a mental disease. Dr. Reifman also pointed out the evidence of planning in the crimes that does not confirm an “irresistible impulse.” Dr. David C. Garron testified that Gacy was competent in all areas and that there was limited evidence of “poorly controlled impulses.”
John Wayne Gacy had previously alluded to an additional personality named “Jack” who had been the one to commit the crimes, but none of these statements were determined to be evidence of a psychotic disorder. According to the overall evaluation of Mr. Gacy, it had been reported that, as a child, Mr. Gacy had suffered from extreme emotional and physical abuse by his father. Instances of adverse health conditions were noted to be present throughout childhood: slower development than normal, persistent head injuries and episodes of “blackouts”, coronary insufficiency, and a convulsive disorder, among others. Instances of Mr. Gacy collecting and hoarding ladies’ undergarments, sexual exploitation by an older man, and abuse by his father were noted to have occurred in Mr. Gacy’s childhood and adolescence. He also appeared to be in denial about his sexuality and did not view those who engaged in homosexual acts as people: rather, they were “paid for,” therefore, they could be used as he pleased. It was argued that these factors contributed to Mr. Gacy not being of sound mind.
Evidence that precluded his competence and lack of a substantial insanity defense was behaviors exhibiting planning in advance to committing the crimes, choosing victims deliberately on the assumption that they would not be missed, the sheer number of the victims, and that significant effort to cover up the crimes had been made. The closing argument for the defense had three main themes: it would not be moral to execute a sick man, the sentence of death would be an act of “mere revenge,” and that Gacy’s life should be spared for the sake of scientific study (People of the State of Illinois vs. John Gacy: The Functioning of the Insanity Defense at the Limits of the Criminal Law, 86 W. Va. L. Rev. (1984). There was not solid expert testimony that convinced the jury that Mr. Gacy was insane at the time of the crimes.
The specificity of the insanity defense makes this is a difficult case to make for those who attempt it for their clients. In Mr. Gacy’s case, it appeared that his attorneys were not arguing his guilt per se, but that he should be committed and studied to further scientific understanding of similar offenders instead of given the death penalty. On May 10th, 1994, John Wayne Gacy was put to death by lethal injection. His case has provided valuable insight into serial killer behavior, as well as his case being an important testament to what constitutes a successful insanity defense.
The important takeaway from Mr. Gacy’s story, like so many habitual offenders like him, is that their behavior may be heinous, disturbing, disgusting, and in violation of every moral standing that guides good and ethical behavior, but those who would say, “the person MUST be insane and crazy,” is not accurate according to the law and the legal definition of insanity. Additionally, the presence of a mental illness is not enough in itself to substantiate an insanity defense. Even before Mr. Gacy, serial murderers have often been found to be articulate, well-spoken, intelligent, cognizant, and aware throughout the process of the trial and sentencing. Their crimes are often just as heinous as Mr. Gacy’s was, however, they are found to be competent according to the standards of the law and are not of such serious mental defect that psychosis was found to be present during their crimes.
The terms, “crazy,” “psychotic,” and “insane” are tossed around very casually in normal conversation when it comes to this topic. After all, how does a “sane” person murder 33 young boys and bury approximately 30 of those bodies under and in their home? While it is morally objectionable behavior according to the standards of a thriving and law-abiding society, it does not make the offender “crazy.” Despite the commission of his crimes, Mr. Gacy had a history of being an upstanding citizen, participating in community events and politics, maintaining a successful business, hiring young men to give them higher-paying work, and being married and having children. It became clear that, on the surface, Mr. Gacy was not the monster that he was being accused of being at the onset of the discovery of the murdered boys. Throughout history, it has become very clear that serial killers are often complex and multi-layered individuals who can play the role of an upstanding citizen and a good neighbor while committing abhorrent crimes.
This is what makes the phenomenon of serial murder so fascinating to the masses: the phenomenon of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. To all appearances, serial killers can be the person who is least expected to be the commissioner of the crimes that they are accused, however, that is not enough to diminish their responsibility. The lack of understanding about mental illness, insanity, and instances of psychosis perpetuates the idea that these reprehensible individuals must be “crazy” to do the things they do, however, it has been shown that this is usually not the case. An element of the insanity defense for Mr. Gacy that does have merit can be argued to be preserving his life for further study. It has become clear that the criminal justice system has a lot to learn about offenders like Mr. Gacy and understanding the psychology of a habitual offender and/or murderer can provide valuable insights into criminal behavior.
References:
Donald H. Herman, Helen L. Morrison, Yvonne Sor, Julie A. Norman & David M. Neff, People of the State of Illinois vs. John Gacy: The Functioning of the Insanity Defense at the Limits of the Criminal Law, 86 W. Va. L. Rev. (1984). Available at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr/vol86/iss4/8
Ott, T. (2021, August 13). John Wayne Gacy: A timeline of the ‘killer clown’ murders, trial and execution. Biography.com. Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://www.biography.com/news/john-wayne-gacy-timeline-murders
Public Broadcasting Service. (n.d.). A crime of insanity – insanity on trial | frontline. PBS. Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/history.html
Illinois General Assembly Compiled Statutes. Criminal Offenses (720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 2012. Retrieved September 5, 2022, from https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=7800000&SeqEnd=9300000
Ethereal Funeral 