Insanity Flashcards
Three temporal periods to look at mental health
(1) During the time of the crime
(2) At the time of trial
(3) During the serving of the sentence
What is malingering?
False insanity defense
What does NGRI stand for?
Not guilty by reason of insanity
Is a D who is NGRI acquitted and can they be punished?
Yes - acquitted, and no, cannot be punished.
Are a small number of D’s who are NGRI conditionally released?
Yes.
In most jurisdictions, does a finding of NGRI result in a
separate hearing on the issue of dangerousness
for commitment to a psychiatric inpatient facility?
YES - In most jurisdictions, a finding of NGRI results in a
separate hearing on the issue of dangerousness
for commitment to a psychiatric inpatient facility
Does the defendant bear the burden of production
(that is, the burden of raising the issue) in all
jurisdictions?
YES - The defendant bears the burden of production
(that is, the burden of raising the issue) in all
jurisdictions
Is the burden of persuasion for insanity defense also on D now?
Yes - in majority of states and federal courts.
3 standards of burden of persuasion
Some = preponderance of evidence, 50.1%
Clear + convincing evidence, 70 - 80%
Beyond a reasonable doubt 99.99%?
Pre‐Modern Insanity Tests
(1) Wild Beast test
(2) Good v Evil test
(3) 20 Pence test
Modern Insanity Tests
(1) M’Naghten Test
(2) Irresistible Impulse Test
(3) Product Test
(4) MPC
(5) Federal test
- Wild Beast Test for Insanity
- mental functioning was no different than that of a wild beast.
- those persons who, like wild animals, lacked the ability to reason
- Good v. Evil Test for Insanity
- defendant does not a have reason whereby she can choose between good and evil.
- focus on defendant’s moral capacity.
- 20 Pence Test for Insanity
- Insane if she could not count till 20 pence.
- focus on cognitive capacity.
Do all tests for insanity require that the limitation in the D’s mental functioning be a result of a mental disease or defect?
YES - • All tests for insanity require that the
limitation in the defendant’s mental
functioning be a result of a mental disease or
defect.
Do you always have to be mentally ill to be insane?
YES.
One exception to the mental disease/defect requirement: Temporary Insanity
In a few cases, defendants were acquitted
after raising a claim that due to external
events, they were rendered temporarily
insane.
What counts as MENTAL DISEASE and what doesn’t?
What counts: schizo, bipolar
What doesn’t count: personality disorders, voluntary substance intoxications
What counts as MENTAL DEFECT?
- intellectual disability, a deficit in IQ
M’Naghten Test
(1) does not know nature of the act that
she was doing (i.e. cognitive incapacity) or
(2) She knew what she was doing, but did not
know that what she was doing was wrong
(ie did not know difference between right
and wrong) (legal/moral wrongfulness)
Irresistible Impulse Test
M’NAGHTEN TEST + VOLITIONAL INCAPACITY (Cognitive incapacity + legal/moral wrongfulness +
- due to disease of mind, lost the ability to choose between right and wrong so as to avoid committing the
act. (i.e. volitional incapacity)
Product/Durham Test - from NH
A person is deemed to be insane at the time of the crime if her unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or defect
MPC/ALI Test
(1) lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct (i.e. cognitive incapacity or
legal/moral wrongfulness); or
(2) lacked substantial capacity to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law (i.e. volitional incapacity)
Two changes with MPC/ALI Test
- Substantial Capacity
- Appreciate - diff. from technically knowing and understanding/appreciating it.
Federal Test - Post John Hinckley
(1) unable to appreciate the nature and quality of her conduct (i.e. cognitive incapacity); OR (2) unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct (i.e. legal/moral wrongfulness)
Alternate Test by Judge Bazelon
mental or emotional processes were impaired to such an extent that she cannot justly be held liable for actions
Is there a presumption of sanity under the law?
YES - D needs to raise the defense.
People v Kohl
SC had held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is not violated by placing the burden of persuasion on the defendant for affirmative defenses.
Clark v Arizona - alien police officer case
SC held that Arizona’s version of the insanity test did not violate the Constitution. Indeed, there is no constitutional requirement for any insanity defense.
- also held that Arizona could restrict expert evidence on mental capacity to the insanity defense, precluding its use on challenges to mens rea.
- BAD LAW.
