You're Wrong About — "The Insanity Defense" with Mackenzie Joy Brennan
Date: August 19, 2025
Host: Sarah Marshall
Guest: Mackenzie Joy Brennan, lawyer and legal analyst
Episode Overview
In this lively, history-guided deep dive, Sarah Marshall and returning guest Mackenzie Joy Brennan take on the insanity defense—its evolution, myths, and real-life cases that have shaped it in the American legal imagination. Weaving together legal history, true crime, and cultural critique, they dissect not only famous cases (from Jazz Age murderesses to John Hinckley Jr.) but also the persistent media tropes and societal anxieties that color perceptions of criminal insanity. Tangents abound—from juries’ odd reasoning to the parasocial perils of fame—but the heart of the conversation is both critical and compassionate: What does it actually mean to be “not guilty by reason of insanity” in the American justice system, and why are we so fixated—and so wrong—about it?
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. Insanity Defense: Public Myth vs Legal Reality
- The TV Stereotype: The hosts open with the observation that most people’s idea of the insanity defense comes from TV—thinking it’s a “get out of jail free” card used by clever lawyers for guilty clients ([04:45-06:05]).
- “If you’ve watched even less Law and Order than I have, you might just think that it’s like some kind of boo hoo, you know, sob story type defense where you’re just like, ‘I’m insane.’ And the judge is like, ‘Oh, poor baby.’” – Sarah Marshall [06:05]
- Legal Definition: The standard legal principle (McNaughton test) focuses strictly on whether the defendant understood the nature of their act or knew it was wrong.
- Mackenzie clarifies: “Anything that demonstrates trying to hide what you’ve done in theory could demonstrate that you understand, at the very least, that society sees this as wrong.” [07:49]
- Public Perception vs Reality: There’s an enduring fear of “evil people” being acquitted on technicalities—“We've landed in the, oh my God, somebody’s going to be let off on a technicality world.” – Mackenzie [07:33]
2. Case Study: Winnie Ruth Judd — Arizona, 1931
- The hosts enthusiastically recount the sensational case of Winnie Ruth Judd: a frail young woman convicted of killing two women, dismembering them, and traveling by train with their body parts in luggage ([11:00–15:24]).
- “This case, it’s from Arizona… It’s got a hot 25 year old woman with tuberculosis, lesbian affairs, and then a fugitive surrendering in a funeral home right before Halloween. Like this is a super fun case except for the victims.” – Mackenzie [11:13]
Key Takeaways from the Judd Case
- Media Influence: William Randolph Hearst paid for Judd’s defense in exchange for exclusive story rights. Yellow journalism sensationalized her trial and public perception ([10:44, 17:18]).
- Gender & Insanity: Testimony at her insanity trial leaned on sexist tropes ("she won't stop twisting her handkerchief", “she laughs out of nowhere”) as evidence of mental illness ([30:02–31:44]).
- Legal Loopholes: Arizona law stipulated that the insane couldn't be executed, but provided no proper process to assert insanity. Judd was nearly executed before a second trial on insanity grounds ([21:44–23:20]).
- Outcome: Due to the insanity defense, she spent decades institutionalized, repeatedly escaping, and eventually died a free elderly woman ([33:44]).
Notable Quote
- “This is one of those ones where you’re like, you might initially not know what to do, but then… certainly just a handful of minutes into it, you’ll be like, oh, this is a very long process of sawing up human bodies that I’ve embarked on. Maybe I shouldn’t be doing this.” – Sarah [13:01]
3. Evolution of the Insanity Standard
- The McNaughton Rule:
- “[It] is that somebody didn’t have the mental capacity to understand their actions, like the nature of what they’re doing, or didn’t have the capacity to understand that what they’re doing is wrong to your definition before or that it violates the rights of another.” – Mackenzie [23:39]
- The Durham Rule (more lenient):
- If the act “was the product of mental illness,” not guilty by reason of insanity ([25:02]).
- Legal Progress:
- Medicine often outpaces law—science wants to progress, law wants to be set in stone ([25:32]).
- Law’s inability to keep up with medical (psychiatric) insight is a theme: “Where the law intersects with medicine, medicine generally travels farther, faster…” – Sarah [25:23]
4. Case Study: John Hinckley Jr. & The Reagan Shooting
([36:19–55:28])
Overview
- Hinckley shot President Reagan and others in 1981, inspired by the movie "Taxi Driver" and obsessed with Jodie Foster.
- His trial brought the insanity defense back into public controversy.
Key Points
- Psychiatric Testimony Overload: Defense called 27 psychiatrists, prosecution just two ([35:19]).
- “Wow. That’s too many psychiatrists.” – Sarah [35:43]
- Hinckley’s Plan/Lack Thereof:
- His “plan” was incoherent, supporting the legal claim of insanity. “The lack of coherence to the whole plan, the lack of coherence to this piece. Makes sense.” – Mackenzie [49:58]
- Cultural & Gender Tropes:
- Hinckley seen as proto-parasocial case: “It was funny how much the word parasocial kept coming to mind…back then, it was almost like that in and of itself was proof of insanity.” – Mackenzie [43:50]
Notable Moment
- The jury watched all of "Taxi Driver" in the courtroom. “They played the entirety of the movie for the jury… imagine you’re just, like, trying to… that is a long and intense movie.” – Sarah [53:35]
Legal Standard at the Time (Model Penal Code Test)
- Not just about right and wrong; “[if you] lacked capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of your conduct or lacked the capacity to conform your conduct to the law’s requirements.” ([55:22])
- "I think if they had had just the McNaughton test... there wouldn’t have been this, like, or you’re so mentally ill that you can’t conform your conduct to legal norms." – Mackenzie [55:56]
5. Aftermath: Political Backlash and Legal Reforms
- Congressional Response: Hinckley's verdict led to a crackdown—raising the bar for the insanity defense, limiting expert testimony, or abolishing the defense in some states ([64:26]).
- Prisons as Mental Facilities: With the closure of asylums and lack of support for mental illness, “prisons are the mental health facilities” by default ([62:58]).
- Modern Variations:
- Some states have “guilty but mentally ill” verdicts—individuals go to prison, possibly with some psychiatric care, but no actual mitigation ([68:13]).
- “It’s just like, when someone’s like, how are you doing? You’re like, well, I feel guilty, but also mentally ill.” – Sarah [68:04]
6. Underlying Philosophical Questions
- Purpose of Punishment:
- Is legal punishment about retribution, safety, rehabilitation, or something else?
- “What is the goal of punishment?” – Sarah [57:31]
- “What is the goal of incarceration? Because if you are found not guilty... it’s not like he was walking around. He was incarcerated.” – Mackenzie [57:41]
- Redemption vs Revenge:
- “If we’re going to pretend to be the country that we like pretending to be… we have to at least go along with the claim that we do want people to heal, if they possibly can.” – Sarah [73:18]
- “Those people [who want endless punishment] are motivated by, I would say, non utilitarian motives and things that we wouldn’t want ruling our sentencing.” – Mackenzie [73:36]
Memorable Quotes and Moments with Timestamps
- Public Misunderstanding:
- “We got to do something about it and we got to think of the children.” – Sarah [02:51]
- On Winnie Ruth Judd’s Bizarre Case:
- “She becomes friends with these two gals and it’s a little unclear who was sleeping with whom, but there are gals… She gets really mad one night and long story short, the two gals end up dead.” – Mackenzie [12:16]
- “She didn’t know what to do, so she chopped them up and put them in her travel trunk and hatbox.” – Mackenzie [12:45]
- On Gendered Evidence of Insanity:
- “I feel like when people…have to present evidence that a woman is mentally ill, they just kind of like present evidence that she’s a woman and they’re like, well, same thing. Really?” – Sarah [31:44]
- On Legal Revision, Law vs Progress:
- “Medicine generally travels farther, faster… and the law sort of like comes scurrying afterwards or maybe sometimes following casually afterwards.” – Sarah [25:23]
- “Law wants to be set in stone. So. It’s kind of antithetical to the whole idea of science progress.” – Mackenzie [25:41]
- Hinckley & Modern Parallels:
- “It was really funny to read all this symptomology that came out at trial. And I don’t know that we would all recognize that as being so common nowadays.” – Mackenzie [44:27]
- On American Views of Violence:
- “There’s a sort of core tenet of American masculinity that violence is just, like, a nice hobby. And I don’t think that that’s a sane belief system, but if you ask a lot of people, they’ll say that it is.” – Sarah [51:27]
- Closing Reflections:
- “The law is not just an instrument of control, but can also…try and conceptualize better things.” – Sarah [74:16]
- “I really think it’s the only way to be if we want to move forward at all. Because fear just rots your brain.” – Mackenzie [75:02]
Important Segment Timestamps
- Leopold & Loeb, Alienists & Public Insanity – [02:51–04:23]
- Winnie Ruth Judd Case – [11:00–34:43]
- Legal Definitions of Insanity (McNaughton, Durham, etc.) – [23:38–26:51]
- John Hinckley Jr. Case – [36:19–55:28]
- Model Penal Code and “Capacity” – [55:21–56:14]
- Prisons as Default Mental Facilities – [62:58–64:26]
- Guilty but Mentally Ill/State Law Patchwork – [68:11–69:59]
- Closing Philosophical Questions – [73:18–74:16]
Tone and Style
The conversation is witty, irreverent, and incisively critical. Both hosts employ humor, vivid analogies, and pop culture references (from Law & Order and SVU to Reagan as Palpatine and “manicured” assassins) to interrogate deep issues of law, justice, and society's hunger for order and scapegoats. The mood shifts seamlessly from glib to thoughtful as they reflect on both the personal tolls and the systemic failures—and possibilities—of American justice.
Resources & Further Reading
- For listeners wanting to read more: the hosts recommend researching the Winnie Ruth Judd case and its tabloid aftermath, the history of the insanity defense (especially McNaughton and Durham rules), and states’ post-Hinckley reforms.
Guest Info:
Mackenzie Joy Brennan: @mkzjoybrennon on Instagram, mkzjoybrennon.com
Hosts:
Sarah Marshall: @Remember_Sarah
[End of Summary]