Winslow, B. Privacy Policy. Skip to main content. Chapter 6: Criminal Defenses, Part 2. Search for:. The use of drugs or controlled substances, dependence on drugs or controlled substances or voluntary intoxication shall not, as such, constitute a defense to a criminal charge… — Or. Learning Objectives Identify four states that do not recognize an insanity defense.
Identify four versions of the insanity defense. Ascertain the two elements required for the irresistible impulse insanity defense. Ascertain the basis of the Durham insanity defense. Identify the various burdens of proof for the insanity defense. Distinguish between diminished capacity and the insanity defense. Compare the insanity defense with mental competence to stand trial.
Compare the insanity defense with the guilty but mentally ill verdict. Compare different commitment procedures for an insane criminal defendant. Distinguish temporary from permanent insanity.
Irresistible Impulse Insanity Defense Another variation of the insanity defense is the irresistible impulse defense. Example of the Substantial Capacity Test Loreen has been diagnosed with psychosis and spent most of her life in a mental hospital. The Durham Insanity Defense The Durham insanity defense is used only in New Hampshire and has been the established insanity defense in New Hampshire since the late s.
Example of the Durham Insanity Defense Arianna has been diagnosed with paranoia. Proving Insanity There is generally a presumption that criminal defendants are sane , just as there is a presumption that they are innocent. Diminished Capacity A claim of diminished capacity differs from the insanity defense.
Mental Competence to Stand Trial The insanity defense is different from mental competence to stand trial. Guilty but Mentally Ill Post- Hinckley , some states adopted the guilty but mentally ill verdict. The Judge Rules! Disposition of the Legally Insane The not guilty by reason of insanity verdict means that the defendant is absolved from criminal responsibility and devoid of any criminal record for the offense.
Temporary Insanity Many states also recognize temporary insanity , which does not differ in analysis from permanent insanity except for the duration of the mental illness Malo, A. The defendant did not know the nature or quality of the criminal act he or she committed or that the act was wrong because of the mental defect or disease. The two elements of the irresistible impulse insanity defense are the following: The defendant must be suffering from a mental defect or disease at the time of the crime.
The defendant could not control his or her criminal conduct because of the mental defect or disease. Under the substantial capacity test, the defendant must lack substantial, not total, capacity to appreciate the criminality of conduct or to control or conform conduct to the law.
The Durham insanity defense excuses criminal conduct when it is caused by a mental disease or defect. The criminal defendant pleading not guilty by reason of insanity must produce evidence to rebut the presumption that criminal defendants are sane.
Thereafter, either the prosecution has the burden of disproving insanity to a certain evidentiary standard or the defendant has the burden of proving insanity to a preponderance of evidence or clear and convincing evidence. The diminished capacity defense is a failure of proof imperfect defense that may reduce a first-degree murder to second-degree murder or manslaughter if the defendant did not have the mental capacity to form first-degree murder criminal intent.
The insanity defense is generally a perfect affirmative defense in many jurisdictions. The insanity defense exonerates the defendant from criminal responsibility. Mental incompetence to stand trial delays the criminal trial until mental competency is regained.
The guilty but mentally ill verdict finds the criminal defendant guilty but orders him or her to undergo mental health treatment while incarcerated.
The federal government and some states automatically commit a criminal defendant to a mental health facility after an acquittal based on insanity. Other states have a postverdict hearing to rule on commitment. A claim of temporary insanity is the same as a claim of insanity except for the duration of the mental illness. Exercises Answer the following questions.
Jeffrey is diagnosed with schizophrenia. For fifteen years, Jeffrey kidnaps, tortures, kills, and eats human victims. Why or why not? Read State v. Guido , A. Psychiatric experts examined the defendant and deemed her legally sane at the time of the killing. The jury found the defendant sane after being made aware of this discrepancy. Hornsby , S. In Hornsby , the defendant sought to reverse his convictions for burglary and murder after jury verdicts of guilty but mentally ill.
The defendant claimed that defendants incarcerated after guilty but mentally ill verdicts receive the same mental health treatment as defendants incarcerated under regular guilty verdicts, violating the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.
Did the Supreme Court of South Carolina uphold the statute? What is the purpose of putting Mitchell on trial rather than delaying the trial for mental incompetency? Is this purpose ethical? Entrapment Defense in Criminal Cases. Insanity Defense in Criminal Cases. Intoxication Defense in Criminal Cases. Necessity Defense in Criminal Cases. Self-Defense in Criminal Cases.
Imperfect Self-Defense in Criminal Cases. Duress Defense in Criminal Cases. Alcohol Crimes. Parole and Probation.
Expungement and Sealing of Criminal Records. Offenses Included in Other Crimes. Derivative Responsibility for Crimes. Working with a Criminal Lawyer. Find a Criminal Law Lawyer. The term "mental disease or defect" does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct. Pennsylvania: People are legally insane if at the time of the commission of an offense they are laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act they were doing or, if they did know the quality of the act, they did not know that what they were doing was wrong.
A defendant relying on the insanity defense has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that they were legally insane at the time of the commission of the offense. The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or will be formed by use of the site. The attorney listings on this site are paid attorney advertising.
In some states, the information on this website may be considered a lawyer referral service. Please reference the Terms of Use and the Supplemental Terms for specific information related to your state. Market Your Law Firm. Lawyer Directory. Call us at 1 Pleading Insanity in a Criminal Case. A successful insanity defense usually results in many years of mandatory treatment in a mental hospital, not a free ride out of jail. Historical Antecedents The insanity defense has been around for centuries.
Definitions of Legal Insanity Many criminal acts seemingly result from distorted mental processes. Under the "product" approach, defendants could be found not guilty by reason of insanity even where they understood and had control over their actions at the time of the offense.
For these individuals, punishment may be more appropriate as its deterrent effect remains intact. Consequently, the same D. New Hampshire is now the only jurisdiction that employs a test similar to the Durham rule. In , in an attempt to modernize the legal standard for insanity, the American Law Institute, a panel of legal experts, developed a new rule for insanity as part of the Model Penal Code. Section 4. First, the language, "appreciate," addresses the cognitive component central to the M'Naghten analysis.
Moreover, the rule allows the legislature to choose between the language of "criminality" or "wrongfulness. Complications arise, for example, when considering persons who, although knowing society would condemn their acts as wrong or criminal, believe that this would not be the case if society knew what they were "aware" of.
This aspect of the Model Penal Code's insanity standard reflects the theoretical foundation supporting the "Irresistible Impulse" test. Here, the Code dictates that criminal liability is unjustified where a defendant could not "conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. The inclusion of this volitional analysis, alongside a cognitive analysis, represents the progressive nature of the insanity standard developed in the Model Penal Code.
There, the use of the insanity defense for psychopaths and sociopaths is expressly proscribed. The federal insanity defense now requires the defendant to prove, by "clear and convincing evidence," that "at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts" 18 U.
This is generally viewed as a return to the "knowing right from wrong" standard. In addition to these seminal understandings of the insanity defense, some legal theorists have endorsed alternative conceptions of the insanity defense in an attempt to address various weaknesses often identified. The integrationist approach, for example, does away with the insanity defense as a unique defense to criminality and evaluates individual defendants under traditional exculpatory defenses, like duress or necessity.
Yet another modification comes from the abolitionist perspective. Under this model, some scholars, contending that social benefit can be derived from the punishment of persons often exculpated by the insanity defense, have suggested the eradication of the insanity defense in its entirety.
Please help us improve our site! No thank you. LII Wex Insanity defense.
0コメント