Insanity Defense ch. 9 – Flashcards

> pleaded NGRI > to prove insanity, you have to prove psychosis > Prosecution: he was methodical in his killings, chose to do it some weekends when he could and not others, and thus had a choice in the decision > His uncontrollable sexual urges were not accepted by the jury as grounds for insanity > Main pt: this was the death knell of the insanity plea bc if he wasn't considered insane by the CJS, then no who could...

• Used in less than 1% of felony cases • Fails about 75% of the time • End up spending equal or longer time in custody • Often not used in cases resulting in victim death

> An insanity defense is no more likely to be successful in a murder case than in any other kind of criminal case > Study found that giving jurors info about what happens to a defendant found NGRI (goes to psych hospital and is not released; jurors aren't regularly given this info) leads for more NGRI verdicts than when such info is not provided > contrary to public opinion that experts cant agree on whether a partic defendant qualifies as insane, the vast majority of experts agreed on insanity of a defendant > Even ppl who clearly suffer from mental illness (ex. Andrea yates who was psychotic) may not qualify as "insane" using legal df • Yates had postpartum mental illness: severely depressed that deepened following child birth, anxiety, and out of touch w reality

that due to a mental illness, a defendant lacks moral responsibility and culpability for their crime, and therefore should not be punished.

whether person knew the difference btwn right and wrong at the time of the crime

it's immoral to punish someone who is not responsible for his actions.

• Retribution/ Just deserts • Deterrence • These reasons for punishment do not make sense if the person did not understand what they did was wrong when they were doing it.

> Punishment for a crime should be proportionate to the harm caused • "An eye for an eye" > requires that indv who committed crime exercised free will and understood what he was doing; if offender did not, he's not morally responsible for his actions and shouldn't be punished

> An indv offender should be punished so she learns that committing a crime leads to punishment (specific), also other similarly situated individuals will vicariously learn these actions lead to punishment (general) > assumes offender and others who might commit the crime will learn from the punishment experience of the offender • A severely mentally ill person will usually not be deterred by punishment bc his reasons for committing the crime are often not rational and he thus cant evaluate the likely punishment for his action before his action occurs - Punishing one mentally ill defendant will not deter other mentally ill defendants from committing similar violent acts for the same reason

guilty mind - the awareness of the wrongfulness of the criminal conduct

ppl found to be non compos mentis (w/o mastery of the mind) should not be held blameworthy for their crimes

> to be found guilty, defendant had to understand diff btwn good and evil > bc the capacity to choose evil beh freely was "restrained in children, fools, and in the witless who don't have reason whereby they can choose the good from evil", the witless were sometimes found to be guiltless > MORAL FAILING > no longer used

> Created by Rex v. Arnold > "totally deprived of his understanding and memory, and doth not know what he is doing, no more than a brute or wild beast" > Became less of a moral failing and more of a COGNITIVE FAILING (deficiency involving understanding and memory/knowing what you are actually doing to be held culpable) > no longer used

1) M'Naghten 2) Durham v. U.S. 3) U.S. v. Hinckley

(aka COGNITIVE Test bc emphasizes knowing and understanding whether one's actions are right or wrong) 1. Defendants are presumed sane and responsible for their crime 2. At the moment of the crime, the accused must have been laboring "under a defect of reason" or "from disease of the mind" 3. The defendant "did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong." • Summary: For a defendant to be found NGRI, had to be suffering from a mental illness that affected his ability to understand what he was doing was wrong. > many jurisdictions still use

> Smith v. US > Some states added this term to their insanity dfs to take into acct VOLITIONAL capacity > (df): inability to control one's beh > defendant could be acquitted if his "reasoning powers were so far dethroned by his diseased mental condition as to deprive him of willpower to resist the insane impulse to perpetrate the deed, though knowing it to be wrong" • A mental disorder could produce an uncontrollable impulse to commit the offense even if defendant remained able to understand its nature & wrongfulness > no longer used

problem: too hard to tell when an impulse was irresistible > i.e. jury didn't know how to decide whether the defendant could not resist the impulse or simply did not resist it

> second attempt to fix M'Naghten problem > impulse had to be so overwhelming that the criminal would have committed act even if police stood beside him at the time of the crime > no longer used

> Durham Standard/Product Test: "an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect" > BROADEST test of all • more modern terms "mental disease or defect" inserted notion of mental illness as a possible cause of criminal beh > US v. Brawner overturned it; still used in New Hamp.

> mental health profs liked it, legal profs did not • Allowed wide discretion for mental health profs to determine if the criminal beh was caused by mental illness • Lawyers and judges feared it shifted balance too far: might lead jurors to attach too much weight to the testimony of mental health profs

> "A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law" > included M'Naghten-like COGNITIVE prong (inability to appreciate wrongfulness) and an irresistible impulse-like VOLITIONAL prong (unable to conform/control his conduct)

> used ALI Standard for the jury > Major factor: burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) Hinckley sane RATHER than on the defense to prove him insane > In response to public outrage, ALI Standard largely abandoned, Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA) adopted

> slightly retooled version of M'Naghten • COGNITIVE • volatile prong was dropped from insanity df > "At the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease/defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense." > Affirmative Defense > Experts were barred from giving ultimate issue testimony > still used in fed system and maj of states

> When a defendant bears the burden of proof for a defense, such as insanity, = aff defense > Required there be a presumption of sanity, and that defendants prove insanity by "clear and convincing evid" (that the truth of the issue be highly probable)

although experts were still permitted to testify about a defendant's mental state, they're not permitted to state their opinion explicitly about whether a defendant was sane at the time of the crime (this question would be left to jurie) • This ban may not be practical: research found that even when experts avoided using the forbidden words and avoided offering a direct conclusion about whether defendant was insane, mock jurors mistakenly remembered that a conc had been offered; thus, testimony is still almost certain to reveal the expert's opinion on insanity issue

giving jurors alternative verdict options 1) Guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) 2) Mens Rea Defenses

Defendants are found guilty for their crime, and sentenced to prison for a period consistent with the verdict. BUT, they received treatment for their mental health issues while in prison (or they are transferred to a secure psychiatric facility). > permitted in 20 states

offers no guarantee that offenders will receive effective treatment for their mental disorders

> Can claim "diminished capacity" > Only applicable for certain crimes that require a specific mental state. • Prosecution bears the burden (beyond a reasonable doubt) • Defendant can be found not guilty, or found guilty of a charge with a lesser mens rea standard

that changing a few words will cause jurors to consider different factors and reach "better" decisions; most revisions in dfs of insanity were intended to reduce # of NGRI verdicts

> M'Naghten and Durham instructions produced no signif difference in verdicts > Jurors took formal language and translated it into concepts consistent w their own understanding of insanity > content of insanity instructions didn't seem to matter > Juries' reasoning about the mental condition of the defendant is not constrained by the narrow bounds of legal dfs; their reasoning is more complex and contextual that that which is embodied in the insanity instructions

Insanity Defense Attitudes-Revised Scale (IDA-R) • strongly predictive of a community sample of jurors' verdicts that other measures • Jurors who possess strong beliefs about the insanity defense are also likely to have strong attitudes about other aspects of the CJS, such as capital punishment