#17100 - Legal Insanity Excuse

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

M'Naghten test - dominant	MPC test 4.01	Federal Test (Post Hinkley)
At time of act Acting under a disease of the mind Did not know the nature and quality of the act OR did not know that the act was wrong Not know what he was doing (squeezing head, think squeezing lemon) Not know the morality of act (thinks god told him to squeeze head)	At time of act As a result of mental disease or defect Lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of conduct OR lacks substantial capacity to conform conduct to the requirements of the law Wrongful prong Volitional prong Changes "appreciate" - can know the wrongfulness of act, but not deeply appreciate its criminality Excuses more people Thinks about volition - conduct due to gambling compulsion, substance abuse etc. Know conduct wrong BUT cannot confirm behavior	At time of act as result of severe mental disease or defect unable to appreciate the nature and quality of act or wrongfulness of the act
Criticism Only thinks about knowledge, not volition But mental disease can also affect voluntariness/volition	Criticism Volition prong diminished, difficult to apply because even experts cannot draw lines between when people can or cannot conform conduct (Lyons, example of the Gigante case - successfully feigned insanity and duped group of brilliant experts) (no basis to distinguish between offenders who were undeterrable and undeterred) Use of this test to acquit Hinkley caused uproar > revert back to M'Naghten	Criticism: no volition prong

At time of act

Acting under a disease of the mind

Did not know the nature and quality of the act OR did not know that the act was wrong

Not know what he was doing (squeezing head, think squeezing lemon)
Not know the morality of act (thinks god told him to squeeze head)

At time of act

As a result of mental disease or defect

Lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of conduct OR lacks substantial capacity to conform conduct to the requirements of the law

Wrongful prong
Volitional prong

Changes

"appreciate" - can know the wrongfulness of act, but not deeply appreciate its criminality
Excuses more people
Thinks about volition - conduct due to gambling compulsion, substance abuse etc.
- Know conduct wrong BUT cannot confirm behavior

At time of act

as result of severe mental disease or defect

unable to appreciate the nature and quality of act or wrongfulness of the act

Criticism

Only thinks about knowledge, not volition
But mental disease can also affect voluntariness/volition

Criticism

Volition prong diminished, difficult to apply because even experts cannot draw lines between when people can or cannot conform conduct
- (Lyons, example of the Gigante case - successfully feigned insanity and duped group of brilliant experts)
- (no basis to distinguish between offenders who were undeterrable and undeterred)
Use of this test to acquit Hinkley caused uproar > revert back to M'Naghten

Criticism: no volition prong

Three tests address culpability concern from knowledge, BUT still do not address the line-drawing problem above & do not give defense to people without volitional control (unless MPC)

But outcomes of three tests not different

Summary:

M’Naghten Test	MPC Test 4.01	Federal Test (post Hinkley)
At time of act	At time of act	At time of act
As a result of disease of mind	As a result of mental disease or defect	As a result of severe mental disease or defect
D did not know the quality and nature of the act OR D did not know the act was wrong (knowledge)	D lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality/ wrongfulness of conduct OR D lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to req. of law (volition) (limited by Lyons)	D unable to appreciate the quality and nature or the wrongfulness of the act

At time of act

As a result of disease of mind

As a result of mental disease or defect

As a result of severe mental disease or defect

D did not know the quality and nature of the act OR

D did not know the act was wrong (knowledge)

D lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality/ wrongfulness of conduct OR

D lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to req. of law (volition) (limited by Lyons)

D unable to appreciate the quality and nature or the wrongfulness of the act

Result: (1) civil...

#17100 - Legal Insanity Excuse - Criminal Law

About Oxbridge

More Criminal Law Samples