Mental State at Time of Offense  

Insanity Defense in General

oActus reus: the physical act (or omission)

oMens rea: intention and mental capacity

o"Insanity" is a legal term that usually speaks to the issue of mens rea

Case of James Hadfield (1800)

Led to the Criminal Lunatics Act of 1800, which mandated the post-acquittal detention of those found not guilty by reason of insanity

Daniel M'Naghten (1843)

Established the first standard used for an insanity defense

"To establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from 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 he was doing what was wrong"(Regina v. M'Naghten, 1843, p. 722)

Cognitive Test

Three substantive elements of the standard:

a) "a defect of reason, from disease of the mind"

b) the defendant did not "know" the "nature and quality of the act he was doing"

c) whether the defendant knew "what he was doing was wrong"

Irresistible Impulse

Volitional Component added to M'Naughten

Defendant is not legally responsible if "(1) by reason of the duress of...mental disease he had so far lost the power to choose between the right and wrong, and to avoid doing the act in question, as that his free agency was at the time destroyed; (2) and if, at the same time, the alleged crime was so connected with such mental disease, in relation of cause and effect, as to have been the product of it solely"

"his reasoning powers were so far dethroned by his diseased mental condition as to deprive him of willpower to resist the insane impulse to perpetrate the deed, though knowing it to be wrong" Smith v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1929)

Durham Rule (Product Rule)

Broadened the standard

"an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect"

American Law Institute (Brawner Rule)

"A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law"

Insanity Defense Reform Act (1984)

"as a result of mental illness, the defendant lacks the capacity to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of the act"

Evolution of the Insanity Defense in the USA

From M'Naughten, to Irresistable Impulse, to Durham (Product), to Brawner or ALI, to Insanity Defense Reform Act, which, in essence, is the same as M'Naughten.

Statistics about the Insanity Defense

• Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin have outline a number of public misperceptions regarding the insanity defense (1) that a large number of defendants use the defense, (2) that most are successful, (3) that those acquitted by reason of insanity are released upon acquittal or shortly thereafter, and (4) that these people are extremely dangerous.
• Frequency: the public estimates that the insanity defense is raised in 33% - 42.7% of cases
• In actuality, it is used approximately 0.9% of the time (9 times in 1000)
• Success: the public estimates that the success of the insanity defense is between 36% - 45% of case
• In actuality, the success rate is less than 20% of the time it is used
• It is unsuccessful more often than it is successful
• What happens to those found NGRI? A lot of jurisdictions require that the person spend at least some time in a psychiatric facility; if not automatic, many states require commitment to a psychiatric facility on grounds of mental illness, dangerousness, or both; most states do not have a limit on the amount of time that someone can be institutionalized as NGRI; how long an NGRI acquittee spends in an institution also varies by state but Steadman and colleagues found that in New York the average stay was 3 1/2 years; in New Jersey 35% of the sample were still in institutions 8 years later; in Michigan it was 9 1/2 months; in Illinois it was 17 1/2 months, however, in this sample over 70% had been found incompetent prior to trial and had spent an average of 38.4 months in institutions.
• When compared with matched felons, results are mixed and vary by jurisdiction and the time period for which they were measured; as a general statement, matched felons and NGRI acquittees appear to spend roughly the same amount of time institutionalized; NGRI acquittees are not getting out earlier nor are they being detained longer than matched felons
• How dangerous are those found NGRI? There have been no studies of dangerousness per se, but rather, studies of recidivism rates of NGRI acquittees and matched felons; these studies, in general, find that the two groups are equal or that NGRI acquittees are somewhat less likely to recidivate than are felons; number and nature of prior offenses, rather than mental illness, appears to be the most predictive factor of recidivism

Demographic Characteristics of NGRI Acquittees

o The NGRI acquittee usually is a seriously disturbed and marginalized member of society

o the modal NGRI acquittee is a white single male in his late 20's or early 30's with a history of previous hospitalization and/or arrest; unemployed and lacks a grade 12 education; is typically psychotic and tends to have committed a non-violent crime.

• NGRI acquittees are detained for highly variable lengths of time; but, generally more serious charges result in longer post-acquittal hospitalizations
• While the average length of detention is sometimes less than that of matched felon groups, there is great variability across jurisdictions
• the re-arrest rates of NGRI acquittees have been found to range from 9.6% to 65%
• when compared to matched felons, NGRIs tend to recidivate in roughly equal proportions

Insanity Defense in New York State

• Governed by Section 220.15 and 330.20 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure
• "Not responsible by mental disease or defect"
• To be found not criminally responsible the defendant must not have known or appreciated either the nature and consequences of the conduct, or that such conduct was wrong.
• Essentially a test of cognitive impairment
• New York also has a "diminished capacity" standard (allows the introduction of mental abnormality to negate a mental element of the crime charged and thereby exonerating the defendant of that charge