Each state, and the District of Columbia, has its own statute outlining the standard for determining whether a defendant is legally insane, therefore not responsible, at the time the crime is committed.
“An insanity defense is based on the theory that most people can choose to follow the law; but a few select persons cannot be held accountable because mental disease or disability deprives them of the ability to make a rational / voluntary choice. Such individuals need special treatment as opposed to prison; punishment is not likely to deter future antisocial conduct of these mentally diseased individuals.” Retrieved on 5/25/2010 from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/EVOL.HTM
There are basically two categories, the M’Naghten Rule and the American Law Institute Model. The states are pretty much split between these two categories, with the exception of Montana, Idaho, and Utah which do not allow for an insanity defense.
The M'Naghten Rule provides as follows:
"Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and ... that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, and not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong."
Retrieved on 5/21/10 from http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more-criminal-topics/insanity-defense/the-mnaghten-rule.html
The test used under the M’Naghten standard, commonly referred to as the "right/wrong" test, to determine if a defendant can distinguish right from wrong is based on the idea that the defendant must know the difference of each...
... middle of paper ...
...a.
Works Cited
Knowles, Brian (2000). Is the Insanity Plea Allowing Criminals to Avoid Justice? Retrieved on 5/25/2010 from http://www.speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1229b-1.html
Montaldo, Charles (n.d) The Insanity Defense; Standard for Legal Insanity Has Shifted. Retrieved on 5/19/2010 from http://crime.about.com/od/issues/a/insanity.htm
The "M'Naghten Rule" (n.d.) Retrieved on 5/21/10 from http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more-criminal-topics/insanity-defense/the-mnaghten-rule.html
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d029.htm
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00634.htm
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/insanity-defense#american-law-institutes-model-penal-code-test
Evolution of the Insanity Plea (n.d). Retrieved on 5/25/2010 from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/EVOL.HTM
Therefore, the M’Naghten test is the applicable legal standard to determine legal insanity (in this jurisdiction). The M’Naghten test asks the following three questions: Did the defendant suffer from a mental disorder at the time of the act? Did the defendant know the nature and quality of the act? Did the defendant know that the act was wrong? According to M’Naghten, insanity applies if the defendant did not know the nature and quality of the act, or did not know that the act was wrong, at the time of the act, due to a mental disorder. In regards to the first question, the defendant must suffer from a known psychological, mental disorder; this disorder must cause a defect in reasoning. If the defendant did not suffer from a mental disorder at the time of the act, then the defendant is not legally insane. Once it is known that there is a mental disorder, the second question to consider is whether or not the defendant knew the nature and quality of the act. The ‘nature’ of the act refers to the physical aspects of the offense, such as physically getting into the car and physically pressing onto the gas pedal to run someone over; the ‘quality’ refers to the potential harm (or outcome) that could occur from the offense, such as running someone over with a car would be to severely harm or even kill that person. The defendant must not know the nature and quality of
Rule of Law: Insanity must be proven under some type of mental or emotional defect caused by disease.
We have an insanity defense to help protect people with mental illness. As you'll see, though, convincing a jury of your insanity is tricky, and only about 1 percent of cases that use the insanity defense are successful (and of that successful 1 percent, only about 15 to 25 percent of those cases are acquittals) [source: Lilienfeld]. Societies have been using some form of the insanity defense throughout history, and we're going to begin our list with Richard Lawrence, the man who tried to assassinate President Andrew Jackson.
Interest and debate have greatly increased over the Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) plea since the 1970s. The legal definition of insanity as understood by Dunn, Cowan, and Downs (2006) is, “a person is thought insane if he or she is incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.” There are several investigations needed in the area of NGRIs plea, especially in the area of gender. Research on gender is needed because of its potential to influence the presentation and formation of the rule of law. Throughout many cultures the general assumption is that men are significantly more aggressive than women, whereas women often are characterized by passive and communal traits (Yourstone, 2007 ). Public opinion on insanity cases is often viewed negatively. Furthermore, the public often believe that insanity defendants go free after they are found NGRI. However, according to Dunn et al., (2006), “the NGRI sits at the low end of the ultimate outcome measure, whereas the death penalty sits at the high end.” The public in general view a mentally ill person as dangerous. The main reason for this is the media’s inaccurate perceptions of the mentally ill as violent (Breheney, 2007). Another problem is the public generally overestimates the insanity defense success rate. According to Breheney et al., (2007), “There are nine insanity pleas for every 1,000 felony cases of which 26% (about two) are successful.” However, the argument has been that insanity defenses are used as a means of escaping severe penalties in the most serious of crimes. Several questions arise from this topic in both psychology and law. It is important f...
The criteria for insanity has changed due to the different criminal cases that people are faced with and there isn’t a fine line between sanity and insanity. From what I have researched, I find that there could be a fine line drawn between sanity and insanity. My criterion for insanity is for a person not to know the difference between right and wrong. My criteria matched well with the M’Naghten Rule which states, “Defendant either did not understand what he or she did, or failed to distinguish right from wrong, because of a ‘disease of mind’” (Reuters, Para. 6) I find that because of today’s society and our need to justify people’s actions, the meaning of the M’Naughten Rule and the fine line between insanity and sanity have lost their value. We focus on the being fair instead of the justice of crimes or any given action. The most important the person must go through extensive evaluation and be diagnosed with a mental disorder that may lead to such violence. Many may say that they didn’t know what they were doing but if there is a motive then that doesn’t mean that the person is insane. I have discovered that people get away with so much in result that they can plead insanity. Many criminal cases nowadays are coming out and admit that those convicted and pleaded guilty of insanity due to a mental disorder, were forging their insanity. We refuse to acknowledge that a sane person could kill people but learn that these people have the ability and desire to do such horror to other people. To diagnose someone with insanity, according to the observation of the Andrea Yates, one must suffer and be diagnosed with a form of a mental disorder.
“Not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) has often perplexed even the most stringent of legal and psychiatric professionals for centuries. Moreover, it has transcended into the pop culture, as a “loophole”for the criminal society. However, the insanity defense is only used in less than 1% of criminal cases, and used successfully in only 10-25% of those cases (Torry and Billick, 2010). In order to successfully be acquitted by reason of insanity, the legal team, paired with psychiatric professionals, must prove that the defendant is not legally responsible for the crime, despite the evidence that they executed the crime. They must also prove that the defendant, was or is currently suffering from a mental disorder, and that the defendant have/had a impaired logical control of their actions (Smith, 2011). According to Torry and Billick (2010), “A criminal act must have two components: evil intent (mens rea, literally “guilt mind”) and action (actus reus, literally “guilty act”)” (p.225), thus the defendant must prove that he/she did not have “mens rea” or “actus reus.” Equally important to note, the act itself must be voluntary and conscious. The the majority of the psychological and judicial court system have a reluctance to hold defendants who lack the capability needed to understand “right from wrong” (Torry and Billick, 2010). It has been proven that over the course of many years, the NGRI have been difficult to apply. During the early 1980’s, many states modernized their NGRI defense and even abolished the defense altogether. Instead of allowing the the “not guilty by reason of insanity” defense, many states have established a verdict of “guilty but mentally ill” (GBMI) (Smith, 2011). In order to make sure that individuals w...
For those that don’t know, the insanity plea, as defined by Cornell Law, is based on the fact that a person accused of a crime can acknowledge that he/she committed the crime, but argue that he/she is not responsible for it because of his or her mental illness, by pleading “not guilty by reason of insanity”. This first became a problem in 1843. Daniel M’Naughten was trialed for shooting the secretary of the Prime Minister in attempt to assassinate the Prime Minister himself. It was said that M’Naughten thought the Prime Minister was the person behind all his personal and financial problems. The jury ruled him “not guilty by reason of insanity”. The reason for the verdict was M’Naughten...
Much of my skepticism over the insanity defense is how this act of crime has been shifted from a medical condition to coming under legal governance. The word "insane" is now a legal term. A nuerological illness described by doctors and psychiatrists to a jury may explain a person's reason and behavior. It however seldom excuses it. The most widely known rule in...
Insanity seems to be the question in the courtroom today. What defines if a person is mentally stable or if he is sick? The government and court system has been trying to find the definite line, but there are still varying beliefs for and against whether people should be allowed to plead insanity. The definition of insanity is, “the state of being mentally ill; madness” (Oxford Dictionary). The definition of mentally ill is “psychiatric disorder that results in a disruption in a person’s thinking, feeling, moods, and ability to relate to others” (worldiQ.com). That being said, ponder these two situations.
The insanity defense pertains that the issue of the concept of insanity which defines the extent to which a person accused of crimes may be alleviated of criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease. “The term insanity routinely attracts widespread public attention that is far out of proportion to the defense’s impact on criminal justice” (Butler,133). The decision of this defense is solely determined by the trial judge and the jury. They determine if a criminal suffers from a mental illness. The final determination of a mental disease is solely on the jury who uses evidence and information drawn from an expert witness. The result of such a determination places the individual accused, either in a mental facility, incarcerated or released from all charges. Due to the aforementioned factors, there are many problems raised by the insanity defense. Some problems would be the actual possibility of determining mental illness, justify the placement of the judged “mentally ill” offenders and the total usefulness of such a defense. In all it is believed that the insanity defense should be an invalid defense and that it is useless and should potentially be completely abolished.
Insanity (legal sense): A person can be declared insane if they are conscious while committing the crime, committing the criminal act voluntarily, and had no intent to inflict harm. A person declared insane lacks rational intent due to a deficit or disorder, which inhibits their rational thinking
Both legal and mental health professionals have long struggled to establish a clear and acceptable definition of insanity. Insanity is a legal term, not a psychological or medical one. The Sarasons prefer to use the term “maladaptive behavior” instead of insane or insanity. Maladaptive behavior is, “behavior that deals inadequately with a situation, especially one that is stressful” (5). Adaptation is the way people balance what they do and want to do, and what the environment/community requires of them. Successful adaptation depends on a person’s stress (situations that impose demands on him or her), vulnerability (likelihood of a maladaptive response), and coping skills (techniques that help him or her deal with difficulties/stress) (5). Consider the recent school shootings as an
There are two theories that justify punishment: retributivism according to which punishment ensures that justice is done, and utilitarianism which justifies punishment because it prevents further harm being done. The essence of defences is that those who do not freely choose to commit an offence should not be punished, especially in those cases where the defendant's actions are involuntary. All three of these defences concern mental abnormalities. Diminished responsibility is a partial statutory defence and a partial excuse. Insanity and automatism are excuses and defences of failure of proof. While automatism and diminished responsibility can only be raised by the defendant, insanity can be raised by the defence or the prosecution. It can be raised by the prosecution when the defendant pleads diminished responsibility or automatism. The defendant may also appeal against the insanity verdict. With insanity and diminished responsibility, the burden of proof is on the defendant. With automatism the burden of proof is on the prosecution and they must negate an automatism claim beyond reasonable doubt.
If we asked most people about insanity the image of a person in a straight jacket, bouncing off padded walls would jump to mind. They might not admit it for fear of being politically incorrect, but the image is a general association with insanity. Yet, most people who suffer from insanity live every day to the fullest—in society. We lock away only those who we “believe” are clinically insane, and we lock sentence most of them without a chance at trial.
Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility all play a significant role in cases where the defendant’s mind is abnormal while committing a crime. The definition of abnormal will be reviewed in relationship to each defence. In order to identify how these three defences compare and contrast, it is first important to understand their definition and application. The appropriate defence will be used once the facts of the cases have been distinguished and they meet the legal tests. The legal test of insanity is set out in M’Naghten’s Case: “to establish a defence…of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” To be specific, the defect of reason arises when the defendant is incapable of exercising normal reasoning. The defect of reason requires instability in reasoning rather than a failure to exercise it at a time when exercise of reason is possible. In the case of R v Clarke, the defendant was clinically depressed and in a moment of absent-mindedness, stole items from a supermarket...