Doc Ock’s Insanity Plea

0
3112

By now, everyone who wants to has seen Spider-Man: No Way Home (“NWH”) once or four times; I mean, who’s counting, so hopefully, the spoilers in this article are no big deal! NWH features many old Spider-Man villains slipping into the current universe due to Dr. Strange and 2021 Peter Parker’s actions. This article will examine whether Doc Ock, one of such villains, could successfully plead insanity for his crimes. For the purpose of this analysis, he’d be charged with the crimes both in Spider-Man 2 and NWH: murders at the hospital, robbery, and the felony kidnapping and assault of Spider-Man and everyone who got in his way in both films.

Here’s some background on Doc Ock from Spider-Man 2. Dr. Otto Octavius nicknamed Doc Ock, short for Dr. Octopus for his… well, you’ve seen his A.I.-powered tentacles (“tentacles”), so you know. Doc Ock was a driven, albeit arrogant scientist whose life’s work was to create a power source that would provide cheap perpetual renewable power for everyone. Following the accident that destroyed the inhibitor chip designed to keep him in control of the tentacles, the tentacles and Dr. Octavius battled for control. In the end, the tentacles won, leading our villain, Doc Ock, to commit crimes in pursuit of recreating the renewable power source. 

Applicable Law:

Since Doc’s crimes were in New York, he would likely be tried under New York state laws. New York’s insanity defense is codified under New York Penal Code § 40.15, where insanity is an affirmative defense to be proved by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. In New York, criminal responsibility may be avoided if “as a result of mental disease or defect, [defendant] lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either: 1. The nature and consequences of such conduct; or 2. That such conduct was wrong” (Penal Law § 40.15)] People v. Kohl, 72 N.Y.2d 191, 196, 532 N.Y.S.2d 45 (1988).

Did Doc lack substantial capacity to know or appreciate the nature and consequence of his conduct?

We see in Spider-Man 2 that the inhibition chip is fried before the crime spree begins. A good lawyer, say, a certain Jeri Hogarth, would argue that the most serious crimes, the murders, occur while he is unconscious and the robotic arms are in clear, complete control, maybe similar to a sleepwalker. For the robbery, kidnapping, and assaults, the question of whether he understood the nature and consequences is tricky. The heart of the argument is what substantial capacity means. In explaining this, the pattern jury charge gives an example of children who may recite something they cannot understand, which would be considered surface knowledge but not true understanding. Substantial capacity requires more than surface knowledge. N.Y. Crim. Jury Instr. 2d Penal Law § 40.15.  Similarly, if Doc is fully present and aware of what’s happening but had no power to act against the tentacles, it’s arguable that while he had awareness but his capacity was not substantial enough to appreciate the nature of the conduct, much like a child.

Did Doc lack substantial capacity to know or appreciate that his conduct was wrong?

This argument would be difficult to support based on the facts we saw. The pattern jury charge states that a person lacks substantial capacity to know or appreciate that conduct is wrong if that person, as a result of mental disease or defect, lacked substantial capacity – not necessarily total capacity, to know or appreciate either that the conduct was against the law or that it was against commonly held moral principles. See People v. Wood, 12 N.Y.2d 69, 76 (1962); People v. Schmidt, 216 N.Y. 324 (1915); Moett v. People, 85 N.Y. 373 (1881). 

Based on what we saw on-screen, it would be tough to argue that Doc lacked substantial capacity to know that robbing a bank or throwing cars full of families off bridges and grandmas off skyscrapers is wrong. Doc argued initially in Spider-Man 2 with the tentacles saying, “I’m not a criminal, the real crime is to not finish the work,” this statement acknowledges he felt justified in doing the crime for a greater purpose – finishing the project. 

His best argument remains that he was essentially a prisoner of the tentacles, and while he knew those things were wrong, they were not his conduct at all. He’d point to his final sacrifice in Spider-Man 2 and his assistance of Peter in NWH once his chip was repaired as evidence that at every opportunity where Doc was in control of the tentacles, he used it for good, and when he was not, he was no different from an onlooker.

Finally, the statute requires that mental disease or defect be the cause of the defendant’s lack of substantial capacity to either appreciate the nature and consequences of the conduct or that the conduct was wrong. The prosecution would likely easily argue that “the robot in my head did it” is not a recognizable mental disease or defect. As such, the defense would be unable to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. On the other hand, a good psychiatrist expert witness should argue that Doc is no different from a person suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder, commonly known as multiple personality disorder, because of the presence of the AI taking control of his mind, body, and wreaking havoc.

It is worth noting that a successful insanity plea typically leads to commitment to a mental institution which could last longer than a guilty sentence if he’s unsuccessful or unable to show that 2021 Peter Parker has cured him of the mental illness by repairing the inhibitor chip. It is plausible that a cured Doc may prefer to introduce evidence of his accident as a mitigating factor to receive a lower sentence instead of an affirmative defense that could cause commitment. A cured Doc does present an unusual case because defendants rarely present evidence that although mentally ill at the time of the crime, they are now cured at the time of the prosecution and should thus be found not guilty and released.

In conclusion, I am not confident that New York’s insanity defense would be the right tool to exonerate Doc. There may be a better argument that the elements of the crime can not be met because the tentacles committed the crimes, and Doc was no different from an onlooker. While J. Jonas may mockingly call this the “‘Robots made me do it’ defense,” with the right lawyer and the amazing Spider-Man as a witness, the man just might go home free. 

Leave a Reply