Insanity Flashcards
Issues of insanity arise in other contexts
- ability to stand trial
- ability to be put to death
3 ability to be committed to a hospital
4 ability to be released from the hospital
Purpose
pointless to punish an insane person
M Naghten Rule 2 prong
majority rule used in federal courts
Elements
1. The D suffered a defect of reason a disease of the mind
- consequently at the time of the act
* the nature and quality of the act or
* that the act was wrong
Element 1. focuses on the nature of D’s disability
Element 2. focuses on the result of the D’s disability
Cameron (Wash) 1983
The d stabbed his stepmother. His defense was that he was insane at the time of the crime.
Despite the insanity defense, he was found guilty.
**wrongness legal or moral..
Experts agreed Δ was suffering from a mental disease, but knew his acts were illegal.
Evidence of lack of moral knowledge
*confession
*repeated act of stabbing
*acting under the deific decree
Traditional evidence of lack of moral knowledge
Not running from police
Continuing act when caught
Diminish capacity
not an affirmative defense its a theory, successful plea results in conviction for a lesser offense
Clark v Arizona 2006
Facts
Clark was circling a residential neighborhood playing loud music
policeman pulled him over Clark then shot him
Clark ran, gun found near him hidden in hat.
State’s desired inferential conclusions:
Clark knew victim was a policeman.
Clark lured victim to scene of crime.
Defendant’s desired inferential conclusions
He suffered from paranoid schizophrenia.
As a result, he did not know right from wrong
MPC Art p 1006
substantial capacity rule
**sense easier to meet that the common law rule
ADDS*** volitional element inability to conform his conduct to the requirements of law
*source of much controversy
*seems like an actus reus defense
*compare with automatism
Defines mental disease or defect “ to exclude psychopathy.
Clark second claim
Can Arizona restrict evidence of mental illness and incapacity to the question of sanity while prohibiting its use to negate mens rea?
Court divides evidence that bears on mens rea into three types:
observational
what did people know about Clark from watching him
mental disease
expert diagnoses of Clark’s condition
capacity
whether Clark had cognitive or moral capacities for criminal conduct
Why did Arizona want to restrict evidence in this way? Risks of misuse of this sort of evidence.
3 risks listed on pp. 655–66
Dissent:
The two issues—insanity and mens rea—are not so neatly distinguishable.
E.g., what inference can be drawn from the observed fact that Clark was playing loud music?
Arizona rule of insanity
Arizona does not care of the mental state. If you said you are someone else that court doesn’t care.
What issues of insanity
What?\
We are only concerned with insanity at the time of the crime.
Issues of sanity arise in other contexts:
ability to stand trial
ability to be put to death
ability to be committed to a hospital
ability to be released from hospital
Purpose
: Pointless to punish an insane person
Allow state to commit someone even if not guilty
Clark First claim
Can Arizona cut the M’Naghten test in half?
M’Naughten test:
1. Mental disease or defect impaired Δ’s reason such that
2. (a) he did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or (b) he did not know what he was doing was wrong.
Arizona has eliminated (a), the cognitive capacity element
. Only (b), the moral capacity element, remains.
Held: State insanity definitions are too varied for any particular definition to be considered a fundamental right.
