Excuse - Insanity

Question 1

Mental illness, insanity, incompetence

Definitions

Answer 1

Mental illness

• A medical term, used by clinicians to refer to a disorder recognized by the therapeutic community for purposes of diagnosis and treatment,

Insanity

• A legal term that refers to a mental state, existing at the time of a criminal offence, that is considered sufficient to preclude criminal responsibility,

Incompetence

• A legal term that refers to a person’s mental state at the start of legal proceedings. A person lacking sufficient mental capacity to understand or participate in the relevant legal proceeding is deemed incompetent (either to stand trial, enter a plea, or be sentenced or executed.)

Can have an insanity defense but be competent to stand trial.

Question 2

MPC 4.04

Incompetence to stand trial

Answer 2

No person who as a result of mental disease or defect lacks the capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defence shall be tried, convicted, or sentenced for the commission of an offence so long as such incapacity endures.

Question 3

M’naghten Standard

Answer 3

Defendant had such a defect of reason from mental disease that:

1. He did not know the quality and nature of the act, or
2. He did not know that the act was wrong.

A defendant would fail the second prong if there was evidence of:

• Remorse,
• Attempts to cover up the act

Question 4

Davis Standard

Answer 4

Mental disease or defect which:

1. Renders him incapable of knowing right from wrong, or
2. Unconscious of the nature of the act which he is committing, or,
3. His action were beyond the control of his will (IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE)

Question 5

MPC 4.01

Insanity standards

Answer 5

1. A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct because of mental disease or defect he LACKS SUBSTANTIAL CAPACITY to either:
   
   1. appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct, or
   2. To conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
2. The terms “mental disease or defect” do not include an abnormality manifester only by repeated criminal or otherwise anti-social conduct.

Question 6

United States v. Lyons

Answer 6

A person is not responsible for criminal conduct on the grounds of insanity ONLY IF at the time of his conduct, as a result of the mental defect, he is substantially unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct.

• Adopts the first prong of the MC, HOWEVER refuses to adopt the second prong (volitional prong)

Question 7

Fed. Statute 18 U.S.C. 17

Answer 7

It is an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENCE to a prosecution under a federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offence, that the defendant because of severe mental disease or defect was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the worngfulness of his acts.

• Basically the M’naghten test but not it is an affirmative defence.

Question 8

Insanity Standards

Most Permissive to Least Permissive

Answer 8

MPC 4.01

Davis

Lyons

Federal Statute/M’Naughten