Sexual Assault. Felony Charges. Drug Cases. Drunk Driving. Personal Injury. Boating Accidents. Automobile Accidents. Hart Powell, S. The Insanity Plea You may have heard about it in the news or seen it on television.
Facts Regarding the Insanity Plea The following statistics relate to the insanity plea as a defense tool: Sixty to seventy percent of cases invoking the insanity plea are for crimes other than murder. Three states do not view the insanity plea as a viable defense: Idaho, Montana and Utah.
By focusing exclusively on cognitive incapacity, the M'Naghten test is not well suited for treating more nuanced forms of psychological disorders, particularly those involving volitional impairment. Traditionally, the M'Naghten test has been associated with schizophrenia and psychotic disorders. The M'Naghten rule became the standard for insanity in the United States and the United Kingdom and is still the standard for insanity in almost half of the states.
In contrast to the emphasis on cognition central to the M'Naghten test, the "Irresistible Impulse" test focuses on the volitional components of insanity.
Various courts have struggled to address criminal defendants who, while comprehending the wrongfulness of their actions, are incapable of self-control because of a mental disease or defect. To levy punishment against a defendant unable to control his actions appears at odds with the preeminent tenets of criminal justice.
The move towards volition alleviates this tension. Under the "Irresistible Impulse" test a jury may find a defendant not guilty by reason of insanity where the defendant was laboring under a mental disease or defect that compelled him to commit the object offense.
This test is well-suited for persons suffering from manias and paraphilias. While treating a genuine issue within the M'Naghten framework, the "Irresistible Impulse" test creates several practical concerns. First, unlike the cognitive prong of the insanity defense, the volitional component of insanity is substantiated by a less robust scientific literature.
Consequently, the evaluating the veracity of a defendant's claim becomes more difficult in the absence of unequivocal scientific findings. Moreover, the "Irresistible Impulse" test may be over-inclusive.
Defendants laboring under psychological conditions, which, while genuine, do not completely inhibit self-control, may be exonerated of criminal liability.
Monte Durham was a year-old who had been in and out of prison and mental institutions since he was He was convicted for housebreaking in , and his attorney appealed. Although the district court judge had ruled that Durham's attorneys had failed to prove he didn't know the difference between right and wrong, the federal appellate judge chose to use the case to reform the M'Naghten rule. Citing leading psychiatrists and jurists of the day, the appellate judge stated that the M'Naghten rule was based on "an entirely obsolete and misleading conception of the nature of insanity.
The Durham rule states "that an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.
The implementation of this test was initially seen as a progressive development. Specifically, the Durham rule moved away from legal formalisms and emphasized scientific psychological evaluations and evidence. This approach emphasized expert testimony and largely left the jury to follow the professional opinions provided.
Manion hurries inside and finds his wife Laura lying on the floor, raped and beaten by Quill. Manion picks up a gun, walks to Quill's place of employment, shoots and kills him, then calls the police. A defense psychiatrist testifies that Laura's injuries caused Manion to suffer a sudden psychic shock called dissociative reaction, and that dissociative reaction creates an unbearable tension that people may try to alleviate by taking immediate and often violent action.
The psychiatrist's testimony supports a conclusion that Manion was legally insane under the irresistible impulse test. This example is loosely based on the classic film, Anatomy of a Murder.
Defendants have to advise prosecutors prior to trial if they plan to rely on an insanity defense. Typically, defense lawyers and prosecutors each obtain their own psychiatrists to examine a defendant and testify at trial.
Judges appoint government-paid psychiatrists for indigent defendants. Defendants have the burden of convincing judges or juries by either a preponderance of the evidence or by the tougher standard of clear and convincing evidence that they were insane at the time they committed a criminal act. Evidence rules forbid defense psychiatrists from testifying to an opinion that a defendant was legally insane at the time a crime was committed.
They can only provide a medical diagnosis concerning a defendant's mental illness. Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are rarely set free. Instead, they are almost always confined in mental health institutions. They may remain confined for a longer period of time than had they been found guilty and sentenced to a term in prison.
0コメント