NationMaster - Encyclopedia: Insanity defense

In criminal trials, the insanity defenses are possible defenses by excuse, by which defendants argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were legally insane at the time of the commission of alleged crimes. It is important to note that the legal definition of "insane" in this context is quite different from psychiatric definitions of "mentally ill", also that the definition of insanity varies between jurisdictions. Image File history File links Gnome-globe. ... Image File history File links This is a lossless scalable vector image. ... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... The term criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to any of various bodies of rules in different jurisdictions whose common characteristic is the potential for unique and often severe impositions as punishment for failure to comply. ... Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone has violated the criminal law. ... In criminal law of commonwealth countries, the defense of mental disorder - sometimes called the defence of mental illness - is a legal defence by excuse, by which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were at the time of their... In criminal law, diminished responsibility (or diminished capacity) is a potential defense by excuse by which defendants argue that although they broke the law, they should not be held criminally liable for doing so, as their mental functions were diminished or impaired. ... An intoxication defense, in criminal law, is a defense by excuse, via which a defendant argues that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they were intoxicated. ... The defense of infancy is a form of defense known as an excuse so that defendants falling within the definition of an infant are excluded from criminal liability for their actions, if at the relevant time, they had not reached an age of criminal responsibility. ... Automatism is a disassociative state where the individual suffering from it has no control over their actions. ... In the criminal law, consent may be an excuse and prevent the defendant from incurring liability for what was done. ... Mistake of law and mistake of fact are two types of defense by excuse, via which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law or liable for damages under a civil law action. ... For English law on the criminal defence, see duress in English law. ... This article is about the law definition of necessity. ... For the country-specific law, see provocation in English law. ... This article and defense of property deal with the legal concept of excused (sometimes termed justified) acts that might otherwise be illegal. ... False Confession was a hardcore punk band in the early 1980s that emerged in the Oxnard, California area. ... For the film, see Entrapment (film). ... A contract is any promise or set of promises made by one party to another for the breach of which the law provides a remedy. ... In the common law, a tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. ... This article or section does not cite any references or sources. ... In the common law, a will or testament is a document by which a person (the testator) regulates the rights of others over his property or family after death. ... The law of trusts and estates is generally considered the body of law which governs the management of personal affairs and the disposition of property of an individual in anticipation and the event of such persons incapacity or death, also known as the law of successions in civil law. ... The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e. ... Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone has violated the criminal law. ... In most litigation under the common law adversarial system the defendant, perhaps with the assistance of counsel, may allege or present defenses (or defences) in order to avoid liability, civil or criminal. ... In jurisprudence, an excuse or justification is a form of immunity which must be distinguished from an exculpation. ... A defendant or defender is any party who is required to answer the complaint of a plaintiff or pursuer in a civil lawsuit before a court, or any party who has been formally charged or accused of violating a criminal statute. ... For other uses, see Crime (disambiguation). ... In the most general sense, a liability is anything that is a hindrance, or puts individuals at a disadvantage. ... For other uses, see Law (disambiguation). ... Madmen redirects here. ...

The name "insanity defense" is still in use in the United States, while Australia and Canada have renamed it the mental disorder defence, as Commonwealth nations tend to shy away from it, partially due to the stigma of the word "insanity"^{[citation needed]}. When the insanity defense is successful, the defendant may be committed to hospital. In criminal law of commonwealth countries, the defense of mental disorder - sometimes called the defence of mental illness - is a legal defence by excuse, by which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were at the time of their... The Commonwealth of Nations as of 2006 Headquarters Marlborough House, London, UK Official languages English Membership 53 sovereign states Leaders - Queen Elizabeth II - Secretary-General Don McKinnon (since 1 April 2000) Establishment - Balfour Declaration 18 November 1926 - Statute of Westminster 11 December 1931 - London Declaration 28 April 1949 Area - Total...

In the United Kingdom and the United States, use of the defense is rare and it is more common to rely upon a state of temporary mental impairment.

In the United States a state of temporary mental impairment is not a defense. It falls under the category of a mitigating factor referred to as "diminished capacity". A mitigating factor (which can include conditions not eligible for the insanity defense such as intoxication) can be used to attempt a reduction of the charges to a lesser offense or in a reduced sentence. A mitigating factor in law is any information or evidence presented to the court regarding the defendant or the circumstances of the crime than might result in reduced charges or a lesser sentence. ...

The insanity defense is available in most jurisdictions that respect human rights and have a rule of law, though the extent to which it can be applied may differ widely between jurisdictions. One example is in cases involving the battered-woman syndrome. Where self-defense is not applicable, a defendant may try to use the insanity defense, although this is almost never successful in the United States. An alternative is the use of provocation as a defense. The battered woman syndrome can be entered as a mitigating factor in United States jurisdictions. Human rights are rights which some hold to be inalienable and belonging to all humans. ... The Politics series Politics Portal This box: The rule of law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. ... The battered woman defense is a legal defence representing that the person accused of an assault or murder was suffering from battered person syndrome at the material time. ... This article and defense of property deal with the legal concept of excused (sometimes termed justified) acts that might otherwise be illegal. ... For the country-specific law, see provocation in English law. ... A mitigating factor in law is any information or evidence presented to the court regarding the defendant or the circumstances of the crime than might result in reduced charges or a lesser sentence. ...

The insanity defense is based on evaluations by forensic professionals that the defendant was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong at the time the offense was committed. In addition, some jurisdictions require that the evaluation address the issue of whether the defendant was able to control his behavior at the time of the offense. A defendant making the insanity argument might be said to be pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI). A successful NGRI defense can result in an indeterminate commitment to a psychiatric facility. A wrong or being wrong is a concept in law, ethics, and science. ...

Diminished responsibility (or diminished capacity) can be employed as a mitigating factor and is applicable to more circumstances than the insanity defense in the United States. For example, some jurisdictions accept inebriation or other drug intoxication as a mitigating factor, whereas intoxication alone is not accepted as an insanity defense. If diminished responsibility (or capacity) is presented convincingly, the charges may be reduced to a lesser offense or the sentence may be more lenient. In criminal law, diminished responsibility (or diminished capacity) is a potential defense by excuse by which defendants argue that although they broke the law, they should not be held criminally liable for doing so, as their mental functions were diminished or impaired. ... A mitigating factor in law is any information or evidence presented to the court regarding the defendant or the circumstances of the crime than might result in reduced charges or a lesser sentence. ...

"Insane" and "insanity" are legal terms and not used by mental health practitioners to mean a psychological disorder.

Mitigating factor

The United States Supreme Court in Penry v. Lynaugh and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Bigby v. Dretke have been clear in their decisions that jury instructions in death penalty cases that do not ask about mitigating factors regarding the defendant's mental health violate the defendant's Eighth Amendment rights, saying that the jury is to be instructed to consider mitigating factors when answering unrelated questions. This ruling suggests specific explanations to jury is necessary to weigh mitigating factors. The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C., (large image) The Supreme Court of the United States, located in Washington, D.C., is the highest court (see supreme court) in the United States; that is, it has ultimate judicial authority within the United States... Holding The Eighth Amendment does not forbid executing the mentally retarded; however, the three special issues a Texas jury is required to consider before imposing the death penalty did not adequately allow the jury in Penrys sentencing hearing to consider his alleged mental retardation as a mitigating factor. ... The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the following United States District Courts: Western, Middle, and Eastern Districts of Louisiana Northern and Southern Districts of Mississippi Western, Eastern, Northern, and Southern Districts of Texas The court is based at... Bigby v. ... Jury instructions are the set of legal rules that jurors must follow when the jury is deciding a case. ... A mitigating factor in law is any information or evidence presented to the court regarding the defendant or the circumstances of the crime than might result in reduced charges or a lesser sentence. ... Mental health is a term used to describe either a level of cognitive or emotional wellbeing or an absence of mental illness. ... Amendment VIII (the Eighth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the U.S. Bill of Rights, prohibits excessive bail or fines, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. ...

Withdrawal of successful insanity defense

Although several cases have ruled that persons found not guilty by reason of insanity may not withdraw their successful insanity defense in an habeas petition in order to pursue an alternative, other rulings have allowed it. In State v. Connelly, for example, the petitioner who had originally been found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed for ten years to the jurisdiction of a Psychiatric Security Review Board filed a pro se writ of habeas corpus and the court vacated his insanity acquittal. He was granted a new trial and found guilty of the original charges, receiving a prison sentence of 40 years.^[1] For other uses, see Habeas corpus (disambiguation). ... Pro se is a Latin adjective meaning for self, that is applied to someone who represents himself (or herself) without a lawyer in a court proceeding, whether as a defendant or a plaintiff and whether the matter is civil or criminal. ...

Psychiatric treatments

Those found to have been not guilty by reason of insanity are generally then required to undergo psychiatric treatment, except in the case of temporary insanity (see below). Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are generally placed in a mental institution. Unlike defendants who are found guilty of a crime, they are not institutionalized for a fixed period, but rather held in the institution until they are determined not to be a threat. Authorities making this decision tend to be cautious and as a result, defendants can often be incarcerated for longer than they would have been in prison. In Foucha v. Louisiana (1992) the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a person could not be held "indefinitely". An MRI scan of a human brain and head. ... In criminal trials, the insanity defenses are possible defenses by excuse, by which defendants argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were legally insane at the time of the commission of alleged crimes. ... Federal courts Supreme Court Circuit Courts of Appeal District Courts Elections Presidential elections Midterm elections Political Parties Democratic Republican Third parties State & Local government Governors Legislatures (List) State Courts Local Government Other countries Atlas US Government Portal The Supreme Court of the United States (sometimes colloquially referred to by the...

So far, in the United States, those acquitted of a federal offense by reason of insanity have not been able to challenge their psychiatric confinement through a writ of habeas corpus or other remedies. In Archuleta v. Hedrick, 365 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2004), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit the court ruled against federal insanity acquittees who want to challenge their confinement. Further, it ruled that insanity acquittees may not attack their initial successful insanity defense.^[2] In common law jurisdictions, habeas corpus, or more precisely habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, is a prerogative writ which requires the addressee to produce in court a person in its custody and justify his or her imprisonment. ...

Incompetency and Mental Illness

An important distinction to be made is the difference between competency and criminal responsibility. Competency evaluation, as used in the criminal justice system, is an evaluation of the defendants ability to engage or continue in a criminal proceeding. ...

Competency largely deals with the defendant's present condition, while criminal responsibility addresses the condition at the time the crime was committed.

In the United States, a trial in which the insanity defense is invoked typically involves the testimony of psychiatrists or psychologists who will present opinions on the defendants state of mind at the time of the offense. Mental health practitioners are restrained from making a judgment on the issue of whether the defendant is or is not insane or what is known as the "ultimate issue".^[3] For other uses, see Psychiatrist (disambiguation). ... A psychologist is a person who studies psychology, the systematic investigation of the human mind, including behavior, cognition, and affect. ...

Insanity is a legal concept, not a psychiatric concept of mental illness. If a person has a diagnosed mental disorder is not sufficient reason, from the court's point of view, to relieve them from all responsibility for illegal acts they may commit. A person may have a mental disorder and be a competent person in many other ways, able to write checks, handle his personal affairs, hold a job and carry on a variety of behaviors despite the mental disorder. Likewise, a person may commit a criminal act, independent of the fact that he has a mental disorder. Depending on the jurisdiction, other elements need to be proven, for the court to accept that the mental disorder was responsible for the criminal act, that is, it must be shown that the defendant committed the crime because of the mental disorder. For example, the mental disorder interfered with his ability to determine right from wrong at the time the offense was committed. An MRI scan of a human brain and head. ... A mental illness or mental disorder refers to one of many mental health conditions characterized by distress, impaired cognitive functioning, atypical behavior, emotional dysregulation, and/or maladaptive behavior. ... Mental disorder or mental illness are terms used to refer psychological pattern that occurs in an individual and is usually associated with distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture. ...

It would unduly stigmatize a person with a diagnosed mental illness to say that because of the mental illness he is not responsible for his behavior. Therefore, persons whose mental disorder is not in dispute will be determined sane as the court will decide that despite a "mental illness" the defendant was responsible for the acts he committed and he will be treated in court as a normal defendant. If the person has a mental illness and it is determined that the mental illness interfered with the person's ability to determine right from wrong, and other associated criteria a jurisdiction may have, and if the person is willing to plead guilty or is proven guilty in a court of law, some jurisdiction have an alternative option known as either a Guilty but Mentally Ill (GBMI) or a Guilty but Insane verdict. Michigan (1975) was the first state to create a GBMI verdict. Sometimes a person without mental illness can be found to be insane; for example, a person who is acting under the influence of a drug that was involuntarily administered (though voluntary intoxication has been rejected by most jurisdictions as a defense to crime). (See: Intoxication defense) Official language(s) None (English, de-facto) Capital Lansing Largest city Detroit Largest metro area Metro Detroit Area Ranked 11th - Total 97,990 sq mi (253,793 kmÂ²) - Width 239 miles (385 km) - Length 491 miles (790 km) - % water 41. ... Year 1975 (MCMLXXV) was a common year starting on Wednesday (link will display full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar. ... An intoxication defense, in criminal law, is a defense by excuse, via which a defendant argues that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they were intoxicated. ...

History of the insanity defense

The concept of defense by insanity has existed since ancient Greece and Rome. However, in colonial America a delusional Dorothy Talbye was hanged in 1638 for murdering her daughter, as at the time Massachusetts's common law made no distinction between insanity (or mental illness) and criminal behavior.^[4] Edward II, under English Common law, declared that a person was insane if their mental capacity was no more than that of a "Wild Beast". The first complete transcript of an insanity trial dates to 1724. The fate of insane defendants was uncertain in the United Kingdom until the Criminal Lunatics Act 1800, following the acquittal of James Hadfield, provided for their indefinite detention. The insanity plea was codified in English law with the M'Naghten Rules of 1843, which were formulated as a result of the attempted assassination of British Prime Minister Robert Peel. The rules define the defense as "at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the wrongfulness of his acts." The key is that the defendant could not appreciate the nature of his actions during the commission of the crime. â€œAncientâ€ redirects here. ... For other uses, see Roman Empire (disambiguation). ... This article is about the colonial history of the United States. ... A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception. ... The Dorothy Talbye Trial (1638) is an early American example of a trial of an insane woman at a time when the insane were treated no differently than ordinary criminals. ... Hanging to Music. ... This article is about the U.S. state. ... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... â€¹ The template below (Expand) is being considered for deletion. ... A mental illness or mental disorder refers to one of many mental health conditions characterized by distress, impaired cognitive functioning, atypical behavior, emotional dysregulation, and/or maladaptive behavior. ... for other uses please see Crime (disambiguation) A crime is an act that violates a political or moral law. ... Edward II, (25 April 1284 â€“ 21 September 1327), of Caernarfon, was King of England from 1307 until deposed in January, 1327. ... Events January 14 - King Philip V of Spain abdicates the throne February 20 - The premiere of Giulio Cesare, an Italian opera by George Frideric Handel, takes place in London June 23 - Treaty of Constantinople signed. ... The Criminal Lunatics Act 1800 (39 & 40 Geo. ... James Hadfield or Hatfield (1771/1772 â€“ January 23, 1841) attempted to assassinate George III of the United Kingdom in 1800 but was acquitted of attempted murder by reason of insanity. ... The MNaghten Rules are used to establish insanity as an excuse to potential criminal liability, but the definitional criteria establish insanity in the legal and not the psychological sense. ... A prime minister is the most senior minister of cabinet in the executive branch of government in a parliamentary system. ... For other people named Robert Peel, see Robert Peel (disambiguation). ...

However, in the United States, the insanity defense could be credited to New Hampshire Chief Justice Charles Cogswell Doe^{[citation needed]}.

In Ford v. Wainwright 477 U.S. 399 (1986), the US Supreme Court upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed. It further stated that a person under the death penalty is entitled to a competency evaluation and to an evidentiary hearing in court on the question of his competency to be executed.^[5] In Wainwright v. Greenfield, the Court ruled that it was fundamentally unfair for the prosecutor to comment during the court proceedings on the petitioner's silence invoked as a result of a Miranda warning. The prosecutor had argued that the respondent's silence after receiving Miranda warnings was evidence of his sanity. ^[6] Ford v. ... Federal courts Supreme Court Circuit Courts of Appeal District Courts Elections Presidential elections Midterm elections Political Parties Democratic Republican Third parties State & Local government Governors Legislatures (List) State Courts Local Government Other countries Atlas US Government Portal The Supreme Court of the United States (sometimes colloquially referred to by the... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... Competency evaluation, as used in the criminal justice system, is an evaluation of the defendants ability to engage or continue in a criminal proceeding. ... Wainwright v. ... The prosecutor is the chief legal representative of the prosecution in countries adopting the common law adversarial system or the civil law inquisitorial system. ... The Miranda warning is a police warning that is given to criminal suspects in police custody or in a custodial situation in the United States before they are asked questions relating to the commission of a crime. ... The Miranda warning is a police warning that is given to criminal suspects in police custody in the United States before they are asked questions relating to the commission of crimes. ...

Controversy over the insanity defense

There are many different interpretations of "insane" and many different notions of how to deal with insane individuals.

Some opponents of the insanity defense, including Thomas Szasz, believe that psychiatry itself emerged as a way to justify mercy, of making persons "exceptional" and thus not deserving of the harsh punishment we would as a society wish to dole out to people who had extremely selfish or widely shared rationales for their actions. Since extreme selfishness ("self-absorption") or broadly shared resentments (e.g. envy of the rich, hatred of another ethnic group) are somewhat infectious behaviors, some argue that schizophrenia and other "mental illness" were defined into existence to protect those whose motives and behaviors were not so infectious, and whose offenses were thus unlikely to be repeated by others. The cost of this system of mercy, however, was to classify the psychiatrist and patient in an ongoing unequal-power relationship (See anti-psychiatry). Szasz redirects here. ... For other uses, see Psychiatrist (disambiguation). ... A patient having his blood pressure taken by a doctor. ... Beginning in the 1960s, a movement called anti-psychiatry claimed that psychiatric patients are not ill but are individuals that do not share the same consensus reality as most people in society. ...

In ancient Rome, Latin tribes held various religious beliefs that included considering the insane to be divinely blessed, and therefore beyond the reach of human jurisdiction. It is alleged that insanity as an excuse was introduced in the ancient Roman legal system based upon this tradition. Some modern critics claim that this precedent precludes the insanity defense's validity in a modern secular state like the United States.

The public tends to believe that the insanity defense is used more often than it actually is, possibly because insanity defense cases tend to be of a high-profile nature. The insanity plea is used in the U.S Criminal Justice System in less than 1% of all criminal cases.^[7] Only one quarter of those defendants are found "not guilty by reason of insanity". The term criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to any of various bodies of rules in different jurisdictions whose common characteristic is the potential for unique and often severe impositions as punishment for failure to comply. ...

Some U.S. states have begun to ban the use of the insanity defense and a 1994 Supreme Court ruling upheld the right of Montana to do so. Idaho and Utah have also banned the defense. In 2006, the Supreme Court decided Clark v. Arizona, reaffirming the prerogative of the states to deviate from or even totally abolish the insanity defense. Year 1994 (MCMXCIV) The year 1994 was designated as the International Year of the Family and the International Year of the Sport and the Olympic Ideal by the United Nations. ... Official language(s) English Capital Helena Largest city Billings Area Ranked 4th - Total 147,165 sq mi (381,156 kmÂ²) - Width 255 miles (410 km) - Length 630 miles (1,015 km) - % water 1 - Latitude 44Â° 21â€² N to 49Â° N - Longitude 104Â° 2â€² W to 116Â° 3â€² W Population Ranked... Official language(s) English [1] Capital Boise Largest city Boise Largest metro area Boise metropolitan area Area Ranked 14th - Total 83,642 sq mi (216,632 kmÂ²) - Width 305 miles (491 km) - Length 479 miles (771 km) - % water 0. ... This article is about the U.S. state. ... Holding Due process does not prohibit Arizonas use of an insanity test stated solely in terms of the capacity to tell whether an act charged as a crime was right or wrong. ...

Rules of appreciation

In this section, various rules applied in United States jurisdiction with respect to insanity defenses are discussed.

The M'Naghten Rules

The M'Naghten Rules (1843) 10 C & F 200, state, inter alia, that a person may be "insane" if "...at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, arising from a 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 what he was doing was wrong." During the mid- 20th Century the M'Naghten Rules were gradually adapted in most jurisdictions in the United States by other tests listed below. Following the attempted assassination of another prominent political figure (president Ronald Reagan), however, the M'Naghten Rules underwent a major revival such that they apply in the majority of states. In the UK, however, their application has been largely unaltered. The MNaghten Rules are used to establish insanity as an excuse to potential criminal liability, but the definitional criteria establish insanity in the legal and not the psychological sense. ... (19th century - 20th century - 21st century - more centuries) Decades: 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s As a means of recording the passage of time, the 20th century was that century which lasted from 1901–2000 in the sense of the Gregorian calendar (1900–1999... Reagan redirects here. ...

Irresistible Impulse

There is also an idea of irresistible impulse, which argues that a person may have known an act was illegal but due to mental impairment lost control of their actions. This is a more liberal test than that set by the M'Naghten Rules because it applies to defendants who are fully aware of their actions. The defense was first approved in the U.S. in Ohio in 1834^[8] and emphasized the inability to control one's actions. Since then it has been adopted by other States, but is open to criticism since there is no way to identify impulses which could be resisted or controlled, and each case must therefore turn upon its own facts. In 1994, Lorena Bobbitt was found not guilty of the felony of malicious wounding when it was argued that an irresistible impulse led her to cut off her husband's penis. The principle has not been applied in the U.K. In jurisprudence, irresistible impulse is a defense by excuse, in this case some sort of insanity, in which the defendant argues that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they couldnt control their actions. ... Lorena Bobbitt, née Lorena Gallo (born in 1968 or 1969 in Bucay, Ecuador) is an American woman who became famous after cutting off the penis of her husband, John Wayne Bobbitt. ...

The Durham rule

The Durham rule or "product test" was set forth by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1954 and states that "... an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect". After the 1970s, US jurisdictions have tended not to recognize this argument as it places emphasis on "mental disease or defect" and thus on testimony by psychiatrists and is argued to be somewhat ambiguous. The Durham Rule or product test was adopted by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1954, in the case of Durham vs. ... The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, known informally as the D.C. Circuit, is the federal appellate court for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. ... Year 1954 (MCMLIV) was a common year starting on Friday (link will display full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar. ... The 1970s decade refers to the years from 1970 to 1979, also called The Seventies. ...

The Brawner rule

The Brawner Rule, from the case of United States v. Brawner, 471 F.2d 969 (1972) by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit set aside the Durham ruling arguing the ruling’s requirement that a crime must be a “product of mental disease or defect” placed the question guilt on expert witnesses and diminished the jury’s role in determining guilt. Under this proposal, juries are allowed to decide the "insanity question" as they see fit. Basing its ruling on the American Law Institute’s (ALI) Model Penal Code, the court ruled that for a defendant not to be criminally guilty for a crime the defendant, “(i) lacks substantial capacity to appreciate that his conduct is wrongful, or (ii) lacks substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the law.” // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... Year 1972 (MCMLXXII) was a leap year starting on Saturday (link will display full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar. ... The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, known informally as the D.C. Circuit, is the federal appellate court for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. ... The American Law Institute (ALI) was established in 1923 to promote the clarification and simplification of American common law and its adaptation to changing social needs. ... The Model Penal Code (MPC) is a statutory text which was developed by the American Law Institute (ALI) in 1962. ...

It is noteworthy that this case was (1) decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit and not the United States Supreme Court, and is thus not a national precedent, and (2) not based on constitutional arguments and was thus superseded by Congress in 1984 with the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984. The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C., (large image) The Supreme Court of the United States, located in Washington, D.C., is the highest court (see supreme court) in the United States; that is, it has ultimate judicial authority within the United States...

The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 (U.S.)

There was widespread public outcry over John Hinckley Jr.'s successful use of the insanity defense in his trial for the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, enacted by Congress in 1984 in response to the verdict in the Hinckley trial, and codified at Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 17, states that a person accused of a crime can be judged not guilty by reason of insanity if "the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts." John Warnock Hinckley, Jr. ... Reagan redirects here. ...

The Insanity Defense Reform Act mirrors the M'Naughten rules except that it requires the defendant suffer from severe mental defect, and places the burden on the defendant to prove by clear and convincing evidence (higher than the preponderance of the evidence standard required of the defendant by most states following the M'Naughten Rules). Clear and convincing evidence is the intermediate level of burden of persuasion sometimes employed in the civil procedure. ... Preponderance of the evidence is the level of burden of persuasion typically employed in the civil procedure and administrative law. ...

The substantial capacity test

The substantial capacity test was defined by the American Law Institute, in its Model Penal Code. This argues that insanity should be defined as a lack of substantial capacity to control one's behavior. Substantial capacity is defined as: "the mental capacity needed to understand the wrongfulness of [an] act, or to conform...behavior to the...law." This is related to the M'Naghten Rule and the idea of 'irresistible impulse'. The American Law Institute (ALI) was established in 1923 to promote the clarification and simplification of American common law and its adaptation to changing social needs. ... The Model Penal Code (MPC) is a statutory text which was developed by the American Law Institute (ALI) in 1962. ...

Temporary insanity

The notion of temporary insanity argues that a defendant was insane, but is now sane. A defendant found to have been temporarily insane will often be released without any requirements of psychiatric treatment. This defense was first used by U.S. Congressman Daniel Sickles of New York in 1859 after he had killed his wife's lover, Philip Barton Key, but was most used during the 1940s and 1950s. Since then, it has not been as successful. Type Bicameral Speaker of the House of Representatives House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, (D) since January 4, 2007 Steny Hoyer, (D) since January 4, 2007 House Minority Leader John Boehner, (R) since January 4, 2007 Members 435 plus 4 Delegates and 1 Resident Commissioner Political groups Democratic Party Republican Party... Daniel Edgar Sickles (October 20, 1819 â€“ May 3, 1914) was a colorful and controversial American politician, Union general in the American Civil War, and diplomat. ... This article is about the state. ... Year 1859 (MDCCCLIX) was a common year starting on Saturday (link will display the full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar (or a common year starting on Thursday of the 12-day slower Julian calendar). ... Philip Barton Key (b:1818, Georgetown, DC - d:27 February 1859, Washington, DC) was the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, the son of Francis Scott Key, and a murder victim. ... The 1940s decade ran from 1940 to 1949. ... the first thing that was invented was the automatic DILDO. Education grew explosively because of a very strong demand for high school and college education. ...

Scottish law

The Scottish Law Commission in its Discussion Paper No 122 on Insanity and Diminished Responsibility (2003) [1] pp.16/18 confirms that the law has not substantially changed from the position stated in Hume's Commentaries:

The phrase "absolute alienation of reason" is still regarded as at the core of the defense in the modern law (see HM Advocate v Kidd 1960 JC 61 and Brennan v HM Advocate (1977) JC 38).

Insanity Defense Usage and Success Rate

Media coverage in the United States tends to dictate how situations are perceived by the public. A case using the insanity defense usually receives a lot more media attention because it is considered unusual or dramatic. This increased coverage gives the impression that the defense is widely used but this is not the case. According to an eight-state study the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all court cases and is only successful in 26% of cases. Of those cases that were successful, 90% of defendants had been previously diagnosed with mental illness. ^[9]

The recent cases of Lee Boyd Malvo and Andrea Yates are examples of high-profile use of the insanity defense; both are characterised by their dramatic circumstances. Lee Boyd Malvo (alias John Lee Malvo or Malik Malvo) (born February 18, 1985), along with John Allen Muhammad, was arrested on October 24, 2002 in connection with the Beltway sniper attacks. ... Andrea Pia Yates (born July 2, 1964) of Houston, Texas, United States, committed the filicide of her five young children on June 20, 2001 by drowning them in the bathtub in her house. ...

Encyclopedia > Insanity defense

Contents