MDO Flashcards
mental status
level of global functioning one is subject to at any given point
what does the mental status exam consider?
memory: remote and recent - impairment
orientation: person, place, time
sensorium: hallucinations - persistent
drive: energy
affect: mood - depression, manic, bipolar
cognition: confusion
delusions: particular purpose or mission
what is the purpose of the exam?
to see if there are any departures from normal functioning
what is MDO?
an axis 1 condition characterized in terms of disruption to one or more areas
what are the 2 issues of direct concern to psychologists?
- fitness to stand trial: eligibility of accused to stand trial
- criminal responsibility: culpability of accused which may be reduced by illness or condition
actus reus
- guilt act required for conviction
- accused did indeed commit the crime
what is not the usual domain of psychology?
actus reus
mens rea
- guilty mind
- degree of guilt, severity of sanction all based on level of mindfulness
- police establish
- ability to form intent
which rea/reus is assumed unless otherwise indicated?
mens rea
- objection then look into it
the current mental status is relevant to _______
fitness
mental status at the time of offense relevant to ______
mens rea
when it fitness to stand trial questioned?
if they are sane and no impairment at time of crime but there is injury prior to court then fitness questioned
how is fitness graded?
purpose
knowledge
recklessness
negligence
purpose
intended
premeditated
- first degree murder
-> MOST guilty bc with intent
knowledge
went on despite
second degree
- not intending to but killed bc got out of hand
recklessness
ignored
- high speed driving on bad roads
- reckless actions = death
-> MANSLAUGHTER
negligence
failed to consider
- failed due diligence test - avg man test
what is the one of the most commonly specified q on forensic oer
fitness to stand trial
what is fitness not concerned with?
MSO
what are the typical cases with fitness?
elective mutism
dissociation
psychosis
-> defendent often refuse to enter plea
what are the 3 accepted explanations?
- mute by malic - non-coop: torture until plead
- mutation by visitation from god: not prosecuted - genuinely mute
- mute by visitation from devil: form of torture, generally fatal
what was torture and test by water intended to do?
separate those unwilling to plea from those truly unable
criteria underlying fitness similar to those required to enter civil contract (civil law)
sufficient age
cog adequate
sane
is it possible to be insane and still be fit?
yes unless mental disorder compromises ability to ….
what are the 3 compromises to ability?
- understand role of key courtroom participants -> adversarial nature of proceedings
- understand that he is charged with criminal offense -> range of outcomes
- instruct counsel -> participate in viable defence, challenge prosecution witness (trusty lawyer)
what is insufficient to limit fitness
mere existence of diagnosis
lack of memory of events
does the defendant have to act in his own best interest?
no
describe fitness
changes over time
question of fitness can be raised at any time
presumption of fitness
judge can send defendant for treatment to become fit
judge’s role in fitness test
fit order as mechanism to force treatment on person who needs services but not strictly certifiable
standard tiemframe for fitness eval
30 days
- prosecutors hope the patient inadvertently confesses
- rare for patient to be found unfit
what do lawyers often confuse?
MSO and criminal responsibility
what happens if found unfit?
sent to hospital for up to 2 years
- lousy defense strategy for minor crimes - better off to plead guilty and get lenient charges
who is typically unfit patient?
Low IQ - not everyone
No fixed address
Lengthy psychiatric history
Few supports in the community
- Glad to be in hospital
confessions made by insane person are _____
admissible unless mental illness was used by investigators to obtain confession
competency to refuse insanity defense can be
disadvantage if finding of guilt carries less onerous consequences
- assessment based on level of insight in domain
-> Ted Kaczynski
competency to refuse counsel
Heavy emphasis on appreciation of the
possible legal ramifications.
Can’t be based on delusional/paranoid
beliefs.
fitness to testify
Understanding of truth versus falsehood.
Usually about 7 to 10 years of age with children.
what is a competence only used in US?
sentenced and executed
- centered around principle that it is wrong to punish a person for reasons he does not comprehend
- assumed competent unless shown otherwise -> must understand avail avenues of appeal
- making them competent is an ethical issue - do no harm oath for dr
fitness is concerned with ___ and MSO questions _____
present mental state
inferences about past mental state
MSO impairment needed for
NCR finding
MSO and CR
presumption of sanity
Lunatics and low functioning individuals
weree not held responsible for their actions if the case could be made that they didn’t know right from wrong
now what is seen as inapplicable
goals of deterrence and retribution
what did lunatics do?
use reflected light from full moon to locate and act on victim and lower chances of getting caught
why is the public sus of insanity defense?
- perceived as legal loophole
- ideas of inapplicable deterrence and retribution also questioned - people who are psychologically compromised respond to learning competences
what is unfitness beneficial for?
shorter sentences for major crimes
Canadian Tire wife and husband case
M’Naughton rule
defendent knew what he was doing and KNEW it was wrong/harmful
case for M’Naughton
M’Naughton wanted to kill PM Robert Peel but shot his secretary Edward Drummond instead,
believing him to be Peel.
- “Tories…have compelled me to do this. They follow me, persecute me, wherever I go, and have entirely destroyed my peace of mind.”
(Kneeper, 2001, p.118)
->No expressions of remorse.
-> Notice that the matter of mistaken identity is legally irrelevant here.
To establish a defence on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved
at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason from
disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know that what he was
doing was wrong
self-defense is permissible, and
M’Naughton believed his
life to be in peril and wrong aspect is absent - not prosecuted
what was M’Naughton rules formulated in response to:
Durham rule
Durham rule
crime product of mental defect or disease
- relax and if any indication of MD people would get let go
what did Durham rule crumble under?
interpretation of ASPD as mental disorder
ALI test
Defendant failed to appreciate the
wrongfulness of the act, or could not conform his behavior to law as a result of a mental illness or
defect
what does ALI test exclude?
apd and psychopathy
- excludes anything based on defect of character
what needs to be shown in ALI?
substantial impairment
US burden of proof lies in?
prosecution or defense
what are the rules in AB?
question raised by either side
expert evidence called before judge makes finding
- psych eval necessary under law
CCC section 16
“No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering
from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong
ommision made
act of criminal negligence
2 part test
mental illness and non-appreciation
what does this require?
expert knowledge of psychopathy and cog issues, malingering
malingering
deliberate attempt to fake symptoms with intention of getting more lenience or let off hook
- shitty faking so experts needed to test if real or fake
R v Leary
self-induced intoxication not a defence in general intent
- general intent there is still harm
R v Daviault
no intoxicated to the point of automaton then Leary not applied
- messes with general and specific intent
33.1
provides that self-induced intoxication is not a viable defence in cases with an element of assault
R v Bouchard Lebrun
- brutally assault 2 people under psychotic condition caused by drugs
- appeal that intoxication should be psychosis under sec 16 appeal denied:
-> malfunctioning of mind that results exclusively from self-induced intoxication cannot be considered a disease of the mind in the legal sense
the matter of voluntariness of crime difficult to asses based on
existing science
R v Sullivan
33.1 unconstitutional and no force or effect in province
- all criminal law principles that law relied on to protect morally innocent including venerable presumption of innocence (innocent until proven guilty)
-> goal was to be inebriated
section 1
permits limits to be placed on
guaranteed rights and freedoms as long as they can be
“demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society
section 7
protects an individual’s right to life,
liberty and security of the person and the right not to be
deprived thereof “except in accordance with the principles of
fundamental justice.”
section 11d
enshrines the right to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty. In other words, Section
33.1 would place the onus of proof on the accused person,
which is unconstitutional
section 33
use of “non mental disorder automatism” as a defence where the state of automatism is self-induced by voluntary intoxication and the offence charged includes an element of assault or violence
why is temporary insanity unavailable
defense has to show the disorder is of a chronic and persistent nature.
automatism defenses are rare bc
neutralize mens rea
they unlikely to be successful unless
evidence that defendent sought treatment for condition
- should be aware of these factors and are responsible to mitigate them
what would be an ex of automatism working?
in extreme cases of ptsd
if found NCR_____
- AB BOR
slow and gradual release after many hearings where retained under full warrants - not a true court but similar
- scare their treatment team then lose privileges
What use can a lawyer make of mens rea in the absence of insanity?
- diminished capacity: specific intent at issue, less charge
-> intended and responsible but not to the degree of worse intent - some courts restricting psych testimony bc of capacity of accused to form intent and not the criminal intent itself - reasonable in view of difficulty with MSO assessments
when is NCR not avail
when questions of defendent character since even an insane individuals may deliberately commit apart from disease
what are other diseases attracting NCR
XYY - not more male but less intelligent
hypoglycemia
posthypnotic states
dissociative (controversial_
ptsd
pms
what is used in US nto Canada
guilty but mentally ill
- not less sentencing but in prion hospital
assessment tools
RCRAS - collateral and clinical info
best approach
compare claims of impairment to acts performed and reported symp and signs for disorders
- consistency is difficulty to maintain bc of malingering
