Insanity defense: Difference between revisions

{{Use American English|date=August 2020}}

{{Criminal defenses}}

Legal definitions of insanity or mental disorder are varied, and include the [[M'Naghten Rule]], the [[Durham rule]], the [[1953 British Royal Commission on Capital Punishment report]], the [[ALI rule]] (American Legal Institute Model Penal Code rule), and other provisions, often relating to a lack of ''[[mens rea]]'' ("guilty mind").<ref name=CL/>{{rp|613–635}}<ref name="Cornell1">{{cite web|title=The insanity defense and diminished capacity|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/insane/insanity.html|work=Legal Information Institute: Federal Law|publisher=Cornell University Law School|access-date=19 December 2011|author=Legal Information Institute|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120102214102/http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/insane/insanity.html|archive-date=2 January 2012}}</ref> In the [[criminal law]]s of Australia and Canada, statutory legislation enshrines the ''M'Naghten Rules'', with the terms "defense of mental disorder", "defense of mental illness", or "not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder" employed. Being incapable of distinguishing right from wrong is one basis for being found to be legally insane as a [[criminal defense]].<ref name="CL"/> It originated in the ''M'Naghten Rule'', and has been reinterpreted and modernized through more recent cases, such as ''[[People v. Serravo]]''.<ref name=CL/>{{rp|615–625}}

''[[Non compos mentis]]'' (Latin) is a legal term meaning "not of sound mind".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thesaurus.com/browse/non+compos+mentis|title=non compos mentis|website=thesaurus.com|access-date=2 February 2018|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180202190351/http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/non+compos+mentis|archive-date=2 February 2018}}</ref> ''Non compos mentis'' derives from the [[Latin]] ''non'' meaning "not", ''compos'' meaning "control" or "command", and ''mentis'' ([[genitive]] [[Grammatical number|singular]] of ''[[mens]]''), meaning "of mind". It is the direct opposite of ''[[Compos mentis]]'' (of a sound mind).

==History==

|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=648_AAAAMAAJ&q=dorothy+talbye&pg=PA131

|title=The Romantic Story of the Puritan Fathers: And Their Founding of NewBoston

|access-date=2007-11-14

In ''[[Ford v. Wainwright]]'' 477 U.S. 399 (1986), the [[US Supreme Court]] upheld the [[common law]] rule that the insane cannot be [[capital punishment in the United States|executed]]. It further stated that a person under the death penalty is entitled to a [[competency evaluation (law)|competency evaluation]] and to an evidentiary hearing in court on the question of their competency to be executed.<ref name="supct">{{cite web

|title=Ford v. Wainwright 477 U.S. 399

|publisher=Cornell Law School

==Usage==

==Psychiatric treatment==

{{See also|Involuntary commitment}}

In England and Wales, under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act of 1991 (amended by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act, 2004 to remove the option of a guardianship order), the court can mandate a hospital order, a restriction order (where release from hospital requires the permission of the Home Secretary), a "supervision and treatment" order, or an absolute discharge.<ref>{{cite web|title=Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991, Chapter 25|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/25/introduction|publisher=UK National Archives|author=legislation.gov.uk|date=27 June 1991|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120113024929/http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/25/introduction|archive-date=13 January 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Procedure|url=http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/mentally_disordered_offenders/|work=Mentally Disordered Offenders|author=Crown Prosecution Service|year=2011|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171115112901/http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/mentally_disordered_offenders/|archive-date=2017-11-15|access-date=2011-11-21}}</ref> 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 institutionalized for longer than they would have been incarcerated in prison.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Rodriguez | first1 = J. | last2 = LeWinn | first2 = L. | last3 = Perlin | first3 = M. | year = 1983 | title = The insanity defense under siege: Legislative assaults and legal rejoinders | journal = Rutgers Law Journal | volume = 14 | pages = 397–430 }}</ref><ref>Kenber, Billy (4 June 2015) [http://times-deck.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/2715518c875999308842e3455eda2fe3.html A plea for sanity] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150605004201/http://times-deck.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/2715518c875999308842e3455eda2fe3.html |date=2015-06-05 }} The Times, (Raymond Gregory, on the advice of his lawyer, pleaded insanity in 1971 to being asleep drunk on a building site in Washington DC, USA with a pen knife in his pocket. He was kept locked up for 39 years), Retrieved 4 June 2015</ref>

====Post-verdict conditions====

Once a person is found not criminally responsible ("NCR"), they will have a hearing by a Review Board within 45 days (90 days if the court extends the delay). A Review Board is established under Part XX.1 of the ''Criminal Code'' and is composed of at least three members, a person who is a judge or eligible to be a judge, a psychiatrist and another expert in a relevant field, such as social work, criminology or psychology. Parties at a Review Board hearing are usually the accused, the Crown and the hospital responsible for the supervision or assessment of the accused. A Review Board is responsible for both accused persons found NCR or accused persons found unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder. A Review Board dealing with an NCR offender must consider two questions: whether the accused is a "significant threat to the safety of the public" and, if so, what the "least onerous and least restrictive" restrictions on the liberty of the accused should be in order to mitigate such a threat. Proceedings before a Review Board are inquisitorial rather than adversarial. Often the Review Board will be active in conducting an inquiry. Where the Review Board is unable to conclude that the accused is a significant threat to the safety of the public, the review board must grant the accused an absolute discharge, an order essentially terminating the jurisdiction of the criminal law over the accused. Otherwise, the Review Board must order that the accused be either discharged subject to conditions or detained in a hospital, both subject to conditions. The conditions imposed must be the least onerous and least restrictive necessary to mitigate any danger the accused may pose to others.

===Finland===

===Germany===

The guidelines for the ''[[M'Naghten Rules]]'', state, among other things, and evaluating the criminal responsibility for defendants claiming to be insane were settled in the British courts in the case of Daniel M'Naghten in 1843.<ref name="M'Naghten's case"/> M'Naghten was a Scottish woodcutter who killed the secretary to the prime minister, [[Edward Drummond]], in a botched attempt to assassinate the prime minister himself. M'Naghten apparently believed that the prime minister was the architect of the myriad of personal and financial misfortunes that had befallen him.<ref name="hottop">{{cite book|last1=Starer|first1=Daniel|title=Hot Topics: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Fifty Major Controversies|date=1995|publisher=Simon and Schuster|isbn=0671887084|page=[https://archive.org/details/hottopicseveryth0000star/page/50 50]|url=https://archive.org/details/hottopicseveryth0000star|url-access=registration|access-date=20 October 2017}}</ref> During his trial, nine witnesses testified to the fact that he was insane, and the jury acquitted him, finding him "not guilty by reason of insanity".<ref name="hottop"/>

The M'Naghten rule was embraced with almost no modification by American courts and legislatures for more than 100 years, until the mid-20th century.<ref name="M'Naghten's case"/> It was first used as a defense in the United States in the case of ''People v. Freeman'' in 1847, where an Afro-Native man from Auburn, New York was tried for a quadruple murder. [[William H. Seward]] represented William Freeman and argued that Freeman was mentally insane after being committed to the [[Auburn State Prison]] for a crime Freeman insisted he did not commit.<ref>{{cite book |last=Bernstein |first=Robin |date=2024 |title=Freeman's Challenge: The Murder That Shook America's Original Prison for Profit |publisher=The University of Chicago Press |page=135}}</ref> This was a novel defense at the time, and produced much controversy in the town of Auburn, New York, and throughout the United States at large.

*[[M'Naghten rules]]

*''[[NCR: Not Criminally Responsible]]'', a Canadian documentary film about the mental disorder defense

*''[[Nulla poena sine culpa]]''

*''[[People v. Drew]]''

*[[Sanity]]

*[[Settled insanity]]

*[[Twinkie defense]]

*[[United States federal laws governing offenders with mental diseases or defects]]

*[[:Category:People acquitted by reason of insanity|List of people acquitted by reason of insanity]]

{{Div col end}}

==References==

==Further reading==