Legal Insanity Excuse - Criminal Law

Legal Insanity - excuse

• Rarely raise and difficult to win, because need experts, jurors skeptical of this defense

• Vs. competent (mental state at time od trial)

• Presumption of legal sanity, but different approaches to eliminate the presumption

  • D raises as defense and P must disprove beyond reasonable doubt (show sanity - D tried to hide/lie about it/cover up - would not do this if you didn't think it was wrong)

  • Burden of proof on D

• Why have it

  • Culpability concern: people with mental illness cannot choose behavior freely or cannot choose between right and wrong, no culpable choice

  • No deterrence effect: society cannot deter these people who cannot make culpable choices

  • Instead of punishment, alternatives more effective - rehabilitative, civil commitment

• Result:

  • Civil commitment (long sentences, greater stigma)

    • Some automatic, some require clear and convincing evidence of mental illness/dangerousness

    • Burden on D to show he should be releases from commitment

  • OR Guilty but mentally ill > incarceration + treatment

• Problems

  • Line drawing problem: people who meet the definition and get the excuse NO LESS CULPABLE than people who not do meet the definition but is under cultural, economic, environmental pressures that constrain their knowledge and volition just as mental diseases do

  • Application of defense problematic (privileged people get better lawyers, longer sentences, increased stigma)

  • Jurors often not told about consequences of an insanity acquittal - skeptical of giving the defense

  • Solution: expand excuse to include other types of mental states

• Public dislike this defense

  • Mistrust of psychology (Gigante case)

  • Generally used in high profile cases (Hinkley)

  • Generally used with serious crimes (bc in other crimes, no worth it to use bc longer commitment than the potential sentences) - skews perception