unit 3 Flashcards
initial appearance (first step after arrest)
- first time in front of judge
o Inform suspect of the charge
o Inform suspects of their constitutional rights
o Inform suspect of right to counsel
o Consider bail or custody
o Schedule future court proceedings
The preliminary hearing: is there enough to have a trial?
- In front of judge
- Prosecution offers evidence: does judge think there is enough evidence? – defense doesn’t say much
- Hearsay is admissible
o Because no eyewitnesses - Cross examination only on the issue of probable cause
- No jury: judge can dismiss case, amend (charge them for less or more), indictment, reconsider bail
- Defense may wave this hearing
The grand jury: review case and determine if probable cause
- Citizens from the community (jury pool) meet with prosecution to determine grounds for indictment and whom to subpoena
- 1/3 of states require grand jury (needed to charge someone)
- The decision is not appealable, but a second grand jury may be called
o Can subpoena people
o Grand jury should ask the question: should this person be charged
Arraignment and Discovery
- Arraignment: trial going to go forward
- Defendant is arranged – provided counsel here is needed (Gideon V. wainwright), and pleads
o Gideon V. Wainwright - Customary to plead not guilty to allow for discovery
o Discovery: sharing of info, usually prosecution because they have the government at their disposal
o Criminal vs civil: not as big in civil cases
o Brady V. Maryland (exculpatory evidence)
Prosecution must share exculpatory evidence: share anything that strongly suggests that they are not guilty - Defense is often required to give notice of their defense (e.g. Insanity/alibis)
- Bail is reviewed
Gideon V. Wainwright
stole from pool hall and couldn’t afford lawyer but only used at the time for capital case
Appealed it and they agreed that it should be for all criminal cases but still not guaranteed for less serious cases
Brady V. Maryland
(exculpatory evidence)
Prosecution must share exculpatory evidence: share anything that strongly suggests that they are not guilty
Motions (during discovery phase)
o Separate trials multiple defendants, always in best instance to separate trials
o Sever counts: separate trials for each count- typically not done unless crimes are unrelated
o Change of venue: ask the trail is in a different jurisdiction so jury poils less tainted
o Dismiss on speedy trial grounds
o Dismiss on grounds of selective prosecution: riot where dozens of people have crimes, if they can show that only a certain group are charged then they can try to dismiss the charges because they’re only prosecuting based on race or gender
o Dismiss on double jeopardy grounds (gray area: state vs. gov, civil vs. criminal) :
o Suppress evidence on fourth amendment grounds: Found evidence and didn’t have a warrant
o Suppress a confession/statement by the defendant
o Discovery motions: allowed info from opposite group
o Motion in limine (evidentiary issues): will other evidence be allowed in (past crimes etc.)
The decision to set bail
- Limited by 8th amendment that says bail should not be excessive
o Pay a certain amount of money so avoid being in jail as they wait for the trial - Bail ensures a defendant will make it to trial
- Those not posing any risk are often ROR – released on their own recognizance when judge thinks they won’t skip
o ROR is as effective as bail (less than 10% skip) - Defendants who can’t afford bail and are held until trial are more likely to be found guilty and t receive higher sentences even when amount of evidence and seriousness of the crime is controlled for.
o Why might this happen?
Can’t make as strong as a defense, can’t afford a lawyer, Preconceived notion: lower economic status, repeat offenders
o Is this a problem?
Yes because creating a system that is worse for those of low economic status
Science of bail setting
- Due process model: the only purpose of bail is to ensure that the defendant appears in court for trial
o Protect individual rights
o As little as possible so they show up - Crime control model: bail should be used to protect society
o Protect security
o Keep it high so those who are dangerous are in jail - What determines bail?
o Seriousness of offense
o Past offense
o Social factors: signs that they have ties to the community (school, employed, family etc.) - Who skills?
o Those on trial for robbery
o People who the prosecution predicts to skip usually do
17-20% skip
The science of bail setting: extralegal factors
race, gender personality
o Race: African and Hispanic American’s have higher bail set
o Gender: men have higher bail
o Personality factors: someone who is more unlikable have higher bails
Preventive detention
- Preventive detention: the detention of accused persons who pose a risk of flight or dangerousness
o You have to wait in jail no matter what you are willing to pay
Ex. Double citizenship
Can count for time served
o United states vs. Salerno
united states Vs. Salerno
Mafia boss was kept in preventive detention and tried to appeal it saying that preventive detention is punishment without a trial. However court said it’s not a punishment and meant to protect society
Plea bargaining
- Pleads guilty: avoids a trial completely
- More than 90% of criminal cases end between arrest and trial – primarily due to plea bargaining
- Charge bargaining: prosecutor drops some of the charges in exchange to a guilty plea for others
o Motivated because they get a lesser charge then if they went to trial and were found guilty - Sentence bargaining: prosecutors recommend reduced sentences in return for guilty pleas
o Prosecution negotiates defense, but judge has to accept it
Pros to plea bargaining
- Admission of guilt helps in rehabilitation
- Relieves the backlog of court cases
- Outcomes are prompt
- Other parties benefit (police: don’t have to look into it, witnesses: don’t have to testify, victims don’t have to relieve the experience etc.)
- Defendant’s cooperation may facilitate the prosecution of others
Cons of plea bargaining
- Improper sentencing (unequal)
- The process encourages defendants to surrender their constitutional rights
- Prosecutors exert too much power in negotiating guilty pleas
- Innocent defendants may be coerced to plead guilty
Bordenkircher V. Hayes
- Claimed that increased punishment for not plea bargaining is unconstitutional. Supreme court disagreed, saying “no element of punishment or retaliation so long as the accused is free to accept or reject the prosecution’s offer”
o Threat of increased punishment was trying to discourage him from his constitutional right of a trial and so is unconstitutional, but they disagreed and said he still had the ability to say no – coercion
Psychological influences on plea bargaining (flaming effect and overconfidence bias)
- Flaming effects: the way decision alternatives are framed (gains or losses) can have an impact on a person’s choice
o More convinced when framed in what we gain - Overconfidence bias: people tend to be too optimistic about their changes of securing favorable outcomes
Settlements in civil cases
- Plea bargaining is in criminal cases
- Outcomes also influenced by the negotiators’ reservation price
o Reservation price: plaintiff - minimum amount they would be willing to take to drop trial, defendant – max amount willing to pay to settle the case - Heuristics: mental shortcuts that influence judgement and decision-making (self-serving bias, anchoring and adjustment heuristic)
o Self serving bias: Most likely to look at arguments that support or claim instead of what supports the other which may affect settlements
o Anchoring: if someone gives us a starting number that anchors us and the other number is based off that so goal is to give number first
Preliminary actions
motions, what’s allowed into trial, witnesses, etc.
o Discovery: get info from each side
o Interrogate involved parties
Before trial so do testify in court
Written or verbal usually written is fact and not under dispute
Deposition: under oath, court reporter, both sides there and can cross-examine
o Defendant decides whether to have jury or judge decide case. If prosecutor agrees, a judge can be used
jury selection
for civil and criminal cases, judges pick if jury trial
o Venire: juries are from lists of voter registration, and drivers’ licenses
Concern this is bias so supplement through those who get government assistance etc.
o Voir dire: question potential jurors (to tell the truth)
See if you’re going to be on the trial
Trial
o Opening statements
Lawyers for each side are permitted to make opening statements (not part of the evidence, just overviews of the evidence to be presented_
* 10-45 min: judge decides how long
* Prosecution goes first
o Witnesses
After opening statements, the procecution or plaintiff calls its witnesses
After the prosecution’s or plaintiff’s attorneys have presented all their witnesses, it is the defenses’s turn
* And cross examination
Perjury
* U.S. vs. Dunnigan 1993: added charge due to lying and said that this discourages people to testify on own behalf but courts said enhancement of punishment due to perjury does not infringe on right to testify on own behalf because perjury is intentional lying and so they could be mistaken or lying or if testify for self-defense so perjury isn’t an automatic if testify on own behalf
Rebuttal evidence
o Closing argument
Once all the evidence has been presented, each side is permitted to make a closing argument (summation)
o Jury deliberation
Jury instructions: what the standard is
* With criminal charges, the jurors must be convinced be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty before they vote to convict – must be unanimous
* In a civil trial the preponderance of the evidence is necessary for a finding in favor of one side
o Bye one side over the other
o Doesn’t have to be unanimous
- Sentencing
- Appellate process
Advantages to prosecution
o Full resources of government
o If using a grand jury they can lay out evidence in unrestricted manner
o First and last to address jury (primacy and recency effect)
Advantages to defense
o Entitled to discovery (exculpatory evidence) but do not have to turn over incriminating evidence
o Peremptory challenges to choose Jurors: dismiss a juror
o Defendant doesn’t have to take the stand or do anything
o Found not guilty then can’t be tried again
Sentencing
Sentencing: depending on state either decided by the judge or the jury after a decision of guilt has been reached: death penalty can only be decided by the jury
Civil trials
- Decided by judge (bunch trial) or jury
- Can have a jury of six people (12 for criminal)
- Be decided by ¾ majority (depends on state
Appellate process: correct errors
- Read the record, pleadings (motions by each side), and briefs (written arguments from each side about the appeal)
o Most common form of appeal is procedural error - Can reverse decision, order new trial or thrown out if appeal is granted
- Reverse mostly due to some error
Alternative dispute resolution
- Most cases are resolved through negation or by alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
o Alternative dispute resolution: setting dispute outside of trial process - Very few cases are settled in trials
- 2 to 3% of federal criminal cases go to trial
- 5 to 6% of state criminal cases go to trail
- 5 to 10% of civil cases go to trial
- Conflict resolution: outcome reflecting attitude change or behavior change that effectively brings an end to conflict in question
- Conflict settlement: overt conflict brought to end though underlying bases may or may not have been addressed
- Process control: how much control do parties have over the procedure
- Decision control: how much control do parties have over the outcome
Negotiation: first type of ADR
- Many cases are settled by negotiation, without the assistance of a third party
o Informal: divorce
o Formal: labor contract - Use of a third-party is appropriate when negotiators believe they can no longer manage on their own
o Once a third-part is involved, it is no longer negotiation
o Benefits: allows cooling down period (lengthens process), bring in different perspective, be more objective
o Limitations/problems: negotiation has failed, conflict
Arbitration
- Arbitration is one form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR):
o When the parties agree to binding arbitration, they agree to accept the decision of an arbitrator
o In nonbinding arbitration, if one of the parties is dissatisfied with the arbitrator’s decision, that person may ask that the case be tried before a judge or jury
Similar to bench trial, arbitrator is judge like figure that hears both sides and comes to a conclusion
Summary jury trial
- A summary jury trial is like a conventional jury trial, though shorter
o Lawyers tell jurors what the witnesses would say if present
o The lawyers argue the case and try to answer jurors’ questions about the fact (unlike normal trials)
o The judge tells the jury what the law is and tried to answer jurors’ questions about the law
o The jurors then deliberate
Lets each side know how jurors would decide the case to know if they should settle it w/o going to trial
Usually nonbinding
Mediation
- When is mediation effective?
o When there’s less conflict
o Used in deforce and custody cases - Mediation uses a neutral person (the mediator) to work with the litigants and their lawyers to achieve a settlement
o Not going to make a decision but facilitate the two sides coming to an agreement
o The mediator does not have authority to decide the controversy but, rather, acts as a facilitator, meeting with each part in an effect to broker an agreement - Emery, Sbarra, & grover (2005) divorce mediation in custody cases
o Contact
30% of noncustodial parents say kids once a week or more for year in mediation, 9% in litigation - More contact with noncustodial parent when going through mediation = mediation better for noncustodial parent, saw their kid more and more satisfied with the process
o Happened because in mediation have to get the two sides to agree so it’ll be less lopsided
15% of noncustodial parents say kids over once a year in mediation, 39% litigation
Emery, Sbarra, & grover (2005) divorce mediation in custody cases
o Parental satisfaction (women V. men)
women were equally satisfied with mediation or litigation
But men were significantly more satisfied with mediation over litigation
* Most men were noncustodial parent
Beliefs about alternative dispute resolution
- What form of ADR do people tend to favor?
o Participants (lawyers and parties) favored options that offered them control: like mitigation and negotiation over arbitration or summary jury trial
The third party
- What third party to be Impartiality
- Dignitary process features: want the third party to treat them with respect
- Effective strategies (fisher & Ury, 1981)
o Separate people from problem: don’t base on how likeable each side is but what the best outcome is
o Focus on interests: find out what is important to each party
o Invent options for mutual gain
o Insist on objective criteria: financial security is not objective - Initial stage: gaining acceptance
o Trustworthy, looking out for their intestest, fiar, unbias - Middle stage: probing for potential compromises
o What is each side willing to give up?
o What is common ground?
o Active listening on what each party wants, not pushing for any particular settlement - Final stage: push for compromise
o Mediator shouldn’t identify a specific settlement since they are not there to make the decision just get the party to agree
o Tension between what mediator would think is fair and what the two parties agree on - Tension between what is right and what will bring a settlement
Effective strategies (fisher & Ury, 1981)
o Separate people from problem: don’t base on how likeable each side is but what the best outcome is
o Focus on interests: find out what is important to each party
o Invent options for mutual gain
o Insist on objective criteria: financial security is not objective
Psychology of ADR
- Negotiation outcome often determined by which each party thinks other will settle on
- Anchoring: starting number thrown out that most adjust from
o Set the tone for negotiation
o Most useful when high uncertainty
Not helpful for things like hospital bills
Usually ask more only then willing to settle for because see agreeableness by coming down/giving up things that can be done when they set it higher then they think - Fundamental attribution error and reactance: negatively effects negotiation because if someone has harmed us (see it as intentional/other person is evil)
o Attribute harm to the person being bad/evil
o Reactance: if freedom is threatened we want to do it more
Might not like them as much and less willing to settle - Impact bias: tend to overestimate the impact that something will have on us
o Interviere because people are less willing to give something up - Loss aversion: feel worse about giving something up that we already have compared to giving something up that we may want but don’t have
o Ex. Selling the house is loos aversion compared to alimony which they don’t have yet
o Easier to give up something we already have then what we don’t have yet
Cost benefit analysis of going to trail or using ADR: what are the parties going to look at when deciding on using ADR or going to trail
- The probability of winning or losing
- The amount of money to be won or lost
o If sued: settlement will save them more money then going to trail - Lawyers’ fees and other costs of litigation
- Loss of time by managers and other personnel
o Specific to business: how much time do they put in to testify and how much does it cost me for them to take the time off - Reputation
o Settlements/ADR are more private
Belief about alternative dispute resolution
- Should courts force litigates to try ADR before settling a case for trial?
o Judge throws it out to try ADR, but can only suggest it
o Attorneys like the process more than trial, believing that it is fair and saves clients’ time and money - Disadvantages to ADR
o Can’t establish legal precedents: no influence on any other cases as opposed to decisions made in a trial
o May not establish clear winners: more likely to result in mutual benefits – can be both good and bad but is one part is really at fault you want there to be a winner
Community alternatives to standard prosecution
- Problem-solving courts were developed to rehabilitate and monitor individuals in the community rather than incarcerate (these alternatives pertain to criminal law only).
- Three major justification have been offered for the development and expansion of such community alternatives
o Humanitarian
o Cost: cheaper to treat people in the community than to jail them, especially if it decreases them showing up in the justice system again
o Correlation facilities house inmates who, as a group, have wide-raging rehabilitation needs: community center can specialize for a person’s specific needs compared to jail
The sequential intercept model
- The sequential intercept model (munetz & griffin, 2006) identifies 5 stages of the criminal justice process at which standard steps could be interrupted and a community treatment alternative substituded
- The five stages of the sequential intercept model are:
o Law enforcement and emergency services
The approach known as crisis intervention team (CIT) provides police and other front-line responders with enhanced knowledge and behavioral skills for use when they encounter individuals who may be experiencing a behavioral health crisis - Makes them feel more confident and decreases change that they will arrest someone in a behavioral health crisis
o Post arrest: initial detention/initial hearing and pretrial services
If an individual is arrested, then the second intercept occurs at the “first appearance” before a judge
o Post-initial hearings: jail/prison, courts, forensic evaluations, and commitments
This is a stage at which problem-solving courts (also called specialty courts) such as drug courts, mental health courts, homeless courts, domestic violence courts, and community courts have been developed - Person has to plead guilty for these courts
- Problem solving courts
o This approach in which the law is used as a vehicle to improve people’s lives, is called therapeutic jurisprudence - Drug courts
o First problem solving courts
o Divert cases from the traditional criminal justice system
o Link drug-addicted offenders with treatment programs and extensive supervision
o In exchange for successful completion of the program, the court may, for example, dismiss the original charge
o Offenders assigned to drug court had a 45.5% recidivism rate, while the comparison group had a 54.5% recidivism rate (Shaffer, 2011)
1/3 recidivism rate - Mental health courts
o Deinstitutionalization, the long-term trend of closing mental hospitals and transferring care to community-based mental health treatment facilities
o According to the criminalization hypothesis, a subset of mentally ill offenders committed and were arrested for offenses caused by their untreated symptoms of mental illness
o Treatment plan
o There are two concerns associated with mental health courts
Participants may feel coerced into participating: get a lighter sentence if they go through the problem solving court instead of a trial which might make them feel pressured to say their guilty
The second concern involves the selection of participants: More likely to go to the courts when they are amenable to treatment so with the less likely to reoffend maybe they wouldn’t anyway because they want to be treated so maybe we aren’t making as big an impact as we think - Homeless courts
o Homeless courts are designed to reach out to marginalized individuals, address the underlying problems that resulted in their homelessness, and reintegrate these people into society - Domestic violence courts
o Different than others in that they typically include some type of punishment as opposed to just treatment
o In recent years, domestic violence courts have coordinated efforts to hold perpetrators accountable, enhance victim and child safety, and promote informed judicial decision making
Can handle multimer issues about violence at the same time: same judge for custody issue, assault, restraining order etc.
Require some type of treatment but they’re not really successful in decreasing domestic violence - Community courts
o A neighborhood-focused court that is designed to address local problems such as vandalism, prostitution, shoplifting, vagrancy etc.
Prosecutors given community service to benefit the community - Veterans courts
o Launched 2008: newest
o Nearly 500 such courts across the country (national drug court resource center, 2020)
o Specialize in veterans as offenders: substance abuse, mental illnesses
o Re-entry from jails, prisons, and forensic hospitalization
o Community corrections and community support
Criticisms of problem-solving courts
- Reflect middle-class values and inappropriate paternalistic: life-style choice, not a bad thing
- Lack legitimacy
o Threatening punishment to coerce rehabilitation is unfair
o Because guilt or innocence is not determined by a trial: trial is constitutional right - By the end of 2020, the national drug court resource center (2020) provided the following totals for adult problem solving courts in the united states:
o Drug (1753)
o Veterans (476)
o Mental health (469)
o Family treatment (317)
o DUI (271)
Forensic psychologists
- Have a special knowledge of clinical and social issues
- Are in one of the most needed areas for expert testimony
o Used in both criminal and civil cases
Competence
- Capacity to function meaningfully and knowingly with the court – can they understand the proceedings and what is required of them?
- Criminal procedures should not occur against someone who does not understand the process and purpose
o Not able to understand the law, not really a punishment if they don’t really understand why they’re being punished, unjust to punish someone who doesn’t understand why, and because our legal system allows someone to participate in their own defense and can’t make decisions they need to (pleas) if they aren’t competent
Adjudicative competence
- Any officer of the court must bring evidence about defendant’s incompetence, to the court
- Two basic component to adjustictive comp:
o Foundational competence – does the defendant have the capacity to assist counsel
o Decisional competence: does the defendant understand the process and can they make relevant decisions about it
o Dusky standard was usually used for both: “sufficient ability to consult with a degree of understanding and rational and factual understanding pf the proceedings against him.”
Raising the issue of competence
- Can be raised anytime
- Typically raised by the defense
- Used to be raised by prosecution
o Jackson V. Indiana (1972) – those committed for beign incompetent to stand trial, cannot be kept institutionalized for more than a reasonable amount of time
Prosecution could lock them away for longer in institution then in jail which is why it switched from prosecution to defense - Around 15% of criminal cases
Evaluating competence
- Evaluator: psychologist, criminal social workers
- Mental illness or intellectual disability does not equal incompetence
- Assumption in competence so need to have evidence that they aren’t
- Competency screening test (CST): quickly identifies those who do not need in-depth evaluation
Often used as a precursors
o When I go to court, the lawyer will…
o If Ed’s Lawyer suggest that he plead guilty, he…
o Problems: assumes positive, naive bias is the same as legal competence (someone cynical could prove more incompetent then they actually are); produces a large number of false positives; difficult to score - The fitness interview test-revised (FIT-R) is a structured interview
o 16 items in three broad domains (factual knowledge of criminal procedure, appreciation of personal involvement in and importance of the proceedings, and ability to participate in defense) - Interdisciplinary fitness interview: semi-structured interview, developed ot be administered with the mental-health professional and the attorney
o Ability in legal areas
o Psychopathological symptoms - Macarthur measures of competence: hypothetical situations, the defendants are asked open-ended questions and true/false; takes a long time (2 hours), a shorter test has been developed
o Tell them the right answer if they get it wrong and can they show that they understand that
o Step 2: explain things they don dunerstand
o Step 3: assess understanding
o Step 4: true/false questions
o Scoring: open-ended, true/false
Evaluating competency
- Faking incompetence – many try, few succeed
o Malingering: faking incompetence
Go more extreme then incompetent people - SIRS: structured interview of reported symptoms
o 30 min structured interview
o Asks examinees about symptoms experiencing
o Evaluator knows what systems should look like and so can tell fakes - Evaluator looks at
o Does the person report rare systems (are you bothered by strange smells wherever you go?)
o Symptom combinations (do you have a need to wash your hands frequently? Is this related to any unique or special powers?)
Don’t usually co-occur so are they pair symptoms that don’t go together
o Imporbable or absurd symptoms (do you have any unusual beliefs about automobiles? Do you believe they have their own religion?)
o Severity of symptoms
o Selectivity of symptoms: reporting one but not the other or saying two that don’t go together
o Consistency of symptoms: people who are faking are less consistent
o Reported vs. observed symptoms
Can get in trouble for faking incompetence: charged with obstruction of justice when evidence
Evaluating competence
- Formal competency hearings, what does the court want? Judges call, some want summary (give symptoms and judge says if they’re competent or not), some want ultimate opinion testimony (give weather competent or not)
- Where is the burden of proof
o Medina V. California (1992) a state can require a defendant to prove that he or she is incompetent ( by a preponderance of the evidence): must prove that someone is not, assume they are
o Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996): requiring a higher standard of proof (clear and convincing) denies too many claims – signs that he may be incompetent and so they should have stopped the trial since they just need preponderance of evidence to prove he might be not competent
Results of evaluation
- About 70% assessed are ultimately found competent
- Characteristics of those found incompetent: lowers SVS, mental illnesses, untreated mental illnesses, men
- Those found incompetent and committed, are usually deemed competent within six months
- When treatment does not work, often they are civilly committed (indefinitely) – AVA suggest having a provisional trial for these people (settle the dispute)
Medication and competence
- Riggings V. Nevada (1992): cannot force medication unless it can be shown that the individual is a harm to self or others without the medication
- Sells V. U.S. (2003): Government can administer medication to force competence, but must be (1) medically appropriate, (2) unlikely to have side effects that restrict the trial’s fairness and (3) necessary to further government trial-related interests
o Controversial because it wasn’t a violent crime
Riggings V. Nevada
cannot force medication unless it can be shown that the individual is a harm to self or others without the medication
Sells V. U.S.
Government can administer medication to force competence, but must be (1) medically appropriate, (2) unlikely to have side effects that restrict the trial’s fairness and (3) necessary to further government trial-related interests
o Controversial because it wasn’t a violent crime
Competence to confess
- Requires an assessment of the individual’s state of mind when he or she waived miranda rights
- Very difficult since usually done months later
- What was the state of mind when they confessed
Faretta v. California (1975): Competence to waive the right to an attorney
denied to represent himself and they agreed with him
o The presiding judge must be convinced of adjudicative competence, that the waiver is voluntary, and the waiver is with understanding
o Can’t say bad support if represent themselves
Frendak v. united states (1979):
if a defendant is competent to understand the alternative pleas available then he/she can reject insanity plea
Competency to be sentenced and punished
- Defendant needs to understand the punishment and the reason it is being imposed
- Ford v. wainwright (1986): the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) prohibits the execution of defendants while they are incompetent
Ford v. wainwright (1986)
the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) prohibits the execution of defendants while they are incompetent
Difference between competence and insanity
- Insanity says they committed the crime but were insane so they shouldn’t be held accountable for it, competence is state of mind when standing trial/confessing etc.
- Competence says nothing about responsibility for the crime
- Competence refers to mental abilities during the proceedings
- Insanity judges whether or not individual is responsible for their actions/deserves punishment
- Insanity judges mental state at the time of the offense
Requirements for insanity plea
- Affirmative defense: the accused must prove that they were not responsible for their actions but they did do the defense
- Assess mens rae: must prosses a guilty mind at the time of the act (knew what they were doing and intend to do the offence and had control over it – guilty mind)
M’Naghten Rule
- Legal standard not a medical one
- A defendant is legally insane if he/she
o Did not know what they were doing, or
o Did not know what they were doing was wrong - Some jurisdiction add irresistible impulse test: know an act is wrong but cannot stop self from performing it
Brawner rule (ali rule)
- Defendant is not responsible for criminal conduct if he ‘at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect, lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.”
- Now used in about 20 states (in an altered form
- Differences from M’naughten
o Acknowledges emotional determinants for action (Brawner does)
o Does not requires a total lack of appreciation of the natural crime
o Includes cognitive and volitional element: does not include if someone can control their behavior
Broader and lower standard
Doesn’t seem to change anything
