In 1978, the name Billy Milligan became known worldwide, and his court case shocked the world. He became the first individual in U.S. history to be found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) due to having Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). At the age of 22, Milligan was charged with the kidnapping, robbery, and rape of three individuals attending Ohio State University (OSU). What shocked the courtroom is that Milligan claimed he was not responsible for these crimes, and instead, pointed his finger at Ragen and Adalana, two of his alternate personalities. This verdict sparked a debate in psychology and law: Should DID be accepted as a valid defense by reason of insanity? I believe it absolutely should, and here is why…

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), one can only be diagnosed with DID when they possess two or more distinct personality traits that majorly disrupt memory, behavior, sense of self, and functioning. DID is often a result of childhood trauma like extreme abuse. A powerful example of this comes from Jeni Haynes, an Australian woman with over 2,000 personalities, specifically created to protect herself from her father’s abuse. When testifying in court, Haynes’ alternate personality, Symphony, ultimately helped her convict her abusive father. Haynes’ story shows how DID is not only a form of protection, but can serve as a key witness. 

Though there are many stories like Haynes’ that help support the validity of DID, others argue that DID should not be a valid defense in court. These individuals believe DID is iatrogenic, meaning the disorder is induced in patients by a doctor or medical treatment. A study conducted in 2016 found that through the coercive power of suggestion, patients may change their actions to line up with what they know DID to be. However, the same risk of misdiagnosis exists with all disorders, like ADHD, and yet their legitimacy is not questioned by the law. So what makes DID more controversial? 

Well, part of the reason why our legal system has a difficult time understanding DID is because the law assumes that individuals act on one sense of self, maintaining that all individuals are fully responsible for their actions, behaviors, and memories. However, the purpose of research is to inform others and update their understanding, especially in such a fast-paced society. When a system relies too heavily on precedence and ignores new evidence that goes against dated beliefs, it can result in unfair punishments. 

Other researchers like psychologist Stephen Marmer think DID should not be classified as its own disorder because it is nearly identical to Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), with both disorders involving dissociation and emotional stability. However, findings using the Rorschach inkblot test show otherwise– those with DID use more thinking-based strategies compared to those with MPD, who mostly use emotion-based coping strategies when problem-solving. The difference in thinking strategies between the two disorders proves that DID is its own disorder, distinct enough for legal consideration.

The relevance of DID in legal settings is still very prevalent today. In 2024, an Australian woman known by LN, diagnosed with DID, testified against her abusive father. Surprisingly, the court allowed her to provide court evidence through using her alternate identities, one of them being a terrified five-year-old girl. The court allowing LN to use her alternate identities as witnesses led her father to a guilty conviction, serving as a win for DID’s recognition. 

So here’s the real issue: if the court is able to recognize that different personalities can hold their own memories, then the same logic and framework should be applied to all individuals with DID who commit a crime. If Jeni Haynes’ alternate personality, Symphony, can send someone to jail, then why can’t Milligan’s alternate personality hold the same power?

This is exactly where the system fails. Judges on their own should not be able to determine if an individual with DID was sane at the time of the crime. Instead, we must look at the science which points us in a clear direction. The court should be required to consult with professionals that have concrete data to justify the prevalence of DID.

Altogether, research proves that DID is a real disorder often caused from trauma that is deserving of legal recognition, just like other disorders. A system that claims to be ‘fair’ must be based on evidence, not ignorance; as disregarding science is undermining justice itself. 

This conversation matters more than ever here at Bucknell, and for college-aged students in general, who, because of COVID-19, are more likely to develop some sort of mental illness. Though DID is on the extreme end of mental disorders, it is a type of a trauma-related disorder, which is especially affecting people of our age now. As students that will soon be shaping our future, we have the power and influence to model how mental health is understood and conveyed to the public. 

Ultimately, this paper is not just about DID and particular cases. Instead, it is a call to action, for us as future leaders, to create a fairer system that works to better understand mental health and trauma. Not doing so not only ignores those with DID, but actively disregards the values we ‘claim’ to uphold– and that is simply not right.