A couple of preliminary points. Insanity is a complete defense. That means that a person can be acquitted of any crime if they are able to make an insanity case. Interestingly, insanity is not a medical state but rather a legal pronouncement. A person is declared insane by a jury. It is up to the defendant to prove to the jury that they were insane at the time of the crime. To so do, they need to claim a “not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI). Sometimes a jury will render a verdict for “guilty but with a mental illness” (GBMI). Finally, before a person can be tried, they need to be competent before the trial begins (for Constitutional reasons).
Why we excuse the insane:
United States v. Freeman
357 F.2d 606 (2d Cir. 1966).
Takeaway
It doesn’t make sense to punish the insane under either a utilitarian or retributive theory. Under utilitarian theory, criminal punishment won’t rehabilitate anyone and there is no action that can be deterred (not knowing that what they did was wrong). Under retributive theory, because they didn’t know what they did was wrong, there is no moral culpability causing them to not be blameworthy (even if you would want to for the sake of revenge).
Additional Notes
This is an excuse defense. As such, the defendant has the burden of establishing that the defense can be present.
What is the purpose of the defense under the utilitarian and retributive theories:
- Utilitarian
- Purpose is not served because they can’t be deterred or rehabilitated. They can’t be deterred because they are lacking the criminal mindset. That is also why they can’t be criminally rehabilitated. Instead, they need to be civilly rehabilitated.
- Retributive
- The purpose is not served because the person is not morally blameworthy. This is because those who are criminally insane do not know what they did was wrong.
Procedure with insanity
Step 1: Separate insanity and competency. Competency is whether the defendant can understand that there are proceedings occurring around them. Everyone is assumed to be competent initially. They must be competent for proceedings to occur.
Step 2: If compenent, the defense makes a NGRI motion.
Step 3: The defendant will undergo psychological testing. They are permitted to bring their own psychologist.
Step 4: Trial. Testimony is provided, instructions are given, verdict is delivered.
Step 5: If the NGRI verdict is provided, the defendant is committed for mental health treatment as long as they are mentally ill and dangerous.
Defining Insanity
State v. Johnson
399 A.2d 469 (R.I. 1979).
Question
What test for insanity should be used?
Holding
Adopt the MPC approach.
Analysis
This opinion is simply a history of the common law approach towards the insanity test and their departure from it. They examine each of the proposed and used tests, explain their strengths and weaknesses and then adopt the MPC approach, believing it to be the best approach even though it has flaws. Below are the tests along with a brief description of each
- M’Naghten rule: At the time of the offense, either the person did not know the nature of the act or did not know that it was wrong. This is a pretty strict rule, an all or nothing approach. This means that a lot of the time a jury decision was based solely on the expert’s opinion of the defendant’s mental state.
- Irresistible impulse rule: This looks at what the defendant knows (M’Naghten) but also includes the self-control of the defendant. The issue with this test is that it was still too narrow in including certain instances of crimes.
- The product test: There is no criminal liability if the unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or defect. This is the most expansive by far but the issue here is that the test was too vague for the jury to provide consistent application.
- The MPC approach: Either the lack of capacity to appreciate (not know) the wrongful conduct or lack of ability to conform to the law.
Takeaway
At the time, the MPC approach was widely accepted. Today, the majority of states adopt the M’Naghten rule.
Additional Notes
What are the goals of an insanity test:
- Accurately reflect law, values, and science
- Make the scientific evidence available to the jury
- Preserve the role of the judge and the jury.
M’Naghten Test
At the time of the offense:
- The defendant has a disease in the mind so that:
- He did not know either
- The nature and quality of his acts
- If he did know the nature and quality, did not know his acts were wrong
The issue with this is that it is an all or nothing approach, restricts expert testimony, and fails to consider emotional (volition) impairments (only focus on cognition).
Irresistible Impulse Test
If the person knows what they is doing is wrong, but by insane impulses is irresistibly driven to do it, there is an insanity defense.
Solves the volitional problem but presents other issues. This test only considers explosive types of crimes, not all the rest.
The Product Test
Not responsible if the unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or defect.
This test allows a lot more permissible expert testimony. However, the issue is that the expert testimony takes over the role of the jury and excludes the jury.
MPC Test
A person is not liable for a mental disease or defect that causes a lack of substantial capacity to either
- Appreciate the [wrongfulness] of his conduct or
- To conform their conduct to the law.
The court argues that this is better than M’Naghten because this is not an “all-or-nothing approach”. Additionally, this discusses both the cognitive impairment and the volition. However, there is still a problem. The benefit of not having the “all-or-nothing” approach is also a drawback. That is, there is no line for the jury to know when the person becomes insane.
There is a variety of which test is used. There is variety throughout all the country. We will focus only on the MPC and M’Naghten because those are the primary tests used.
Application
Note this case has disturbing facts.
Yates v. State
171 S.W.3d 215 (T.X. Ct. App. 2005).
Question
Can she claim insanity
Rule
See the M’Naghten rule above.
Holding
Not provided in this context but I believe she was found insane and not guilty.
Facts
Had a severe history of depression, one of the worst cases her psychiatrist had ever seen. She killed her children believing them to be wicked due to her bad parenting. Additionally, she didn’t want them to grow up to the fates that she had foreseen. She believed that killing her children would remove Satan from them, and that she would be executed from their deaths which would execute Satan as well.
Takeaway
Based on the rules from earlier cases, does she have an insanity defense? Should the insanity defense exist?
Additional Notes
M’Naghten Test
At the time of the offense:
- The defendant has a disease in the mind so that:
- He did not know either
- The nature and quality of his acts
- If he did know the nature and quality, did not know his acts were wrong
Based solely on the facts, she can’t make the defense. However, she could with the expert testimony. The expert testimony explained why she did the actions (she thought she was doing the right thing). So she would be legally insane because she did not know that her actions were wrong.
However, the state could argue that the because she was aware of her being prosecuted, then she knew that what she was doing is wrong.
MPC Test
A person is not liable for a mental disease or defect that causes a lack of substantial capacity to either
- Appreciate the [wrongfulness] of his conduct or
- To conform their conduct to the law.
Why would she be insane? She lacks the substantial capacity to appreciate?
Why would she not be insane? Needs to show that substantial capacity. This is much harder under the MPC.
Disclaimer
The content contained in this article may contain inaccuracies and is not intended to reflect the opinions, views, beliefs, or practices of any academic professor or publication. Instead, this content is a reflection on the author’s understanding of the law and legal practices.
