1. CIVIL COMMITMENT – COMMITTMENT BECAUSE OF MENTAL ILLNESS ITSELF
2. CRIMINAL COMMITMENT – COMMITMENT BECAUSE NGRI (NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY)
INSANITY DEFENSE
RARELY USED (< 1%)
IF USED, ALMOST ALWAYS FOR MURDER
IF USED, RARELY SUCCESSFUL
HIGHLY SYMBOLIC AND CONTROVERSIAL
CRIMINAL VS. SICK
PEOPLE SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMES THEY COMMIT
NGRI SEEMS TO VIOLATE THIS VALUE – OFFENDS SENSE OF JUSTICE
PEOPLE WHO ARE SICK ARE NOT BLAMEWORTHY
CONTRADICTION
NOT GUILTY TO WHAT?
A CRIME
CRIME HAS TWO ELEMENTS
ACTUS REA – GUILTY ACT
MENS REA – GUILTY MIND
CRIME REQUIRES BOTH
NGRI DENIES MENS REA
TWO PLACES
DEFENSE AT THE TIME THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED
AT TIME OF TRIAL – INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL – NOT OF CONCERN HERE
M’NAGHTEN CASE (UK 1843)
“THAT EVERY MAN IS PRESUMED TO BE SANE, AND THAT TO ESTABLISH A DEFENSE ON THE GROUND OF INSANITY IT MUST BE PROVEN THAT AT THE TIME OF COMMITTING THE ACT, THE PARTY ACCUSED WAS LABORING UNDER SUCH A DEFECT OF REASON, FROM DISEASE OF THE
M’NAGHTEN (CONT.)
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.”
M’NAGHTEN
1. DEFECT OF REASON (NOT IMPULSE OR EMOTION)
2. FROM DISEASE OF MIND (CAUSAL)
3. NOT KNOW NATURE AND QUALITY OF ACT
4. OR, DID NOT KNOW HE WAS DOING WHAT WAS WRONG
CRITICISMS OF M’NAGHTEN
NARROWNESS
COGNITIVE EMPHASIS
LEGAL, NOT PSYCHIATRIC, GROUNDING
DURHAM RULE (US 1954)
“AN ACCUSED IS NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE IF HIS UNLAWFUL ACT WAS THE PRODUCT OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT.”
REACTION TO PERCEIVED NARROWNESS OF M’NAGHTEN
CRITICISMS OF DURHAM
1. EXTREMELY BROAD (E.G. ASPD)
2. NO DEFINITION OF MENTAL ILLNESS
3. CAN UNDERMINE FOUNDATION OF CRIMINAL LAW
AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE (US 1972)
“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 LAW.”
ALI
NARROWS DURHAM – LACKS APPRECIATION OR ABILITY TO CONTROL CONDUCT
BROADENS M’N – APPRECIATE RATHER THAN KNOW; ABILITY TO CONTROL
ANDREA YATES (TEXAS 2002)
36 YR. OLD WOMAN DROWNED FIVE CHILDREN (6 MONTHS – 7 YEARS) IN BATHTUB THEN CALLED POLICE
HAD ATTEMPTED SUICIDE AFTER BIRTH OF 4TH CHILD AND ON MEDS; 4 HOSPITALIZATIONS
VERY SERIOUS DEPRESSED AFTER 5TH CHILD BUT MEDS. STOPPED
YATES
STATE SOUGHT DEATH PENALTY, YATES PLED NGRI
DEFENSE: HAD VISIONS AND HEARD VOICES TELLING HER TO KILL
PROSECUTION SAID KNEW COMMITTING CRIME AND KNEW IT WAS WRONG
YATES
CONVICTED BUT GIVEN LIFE SENTENCE NOT DEATH
UNDER M’NAGHTEN CLEARLY WAS GUILTY – KNEW DROWNING CHILDREN AND KNEW WAS WRONG
IF DURHAM CLEARLY NGRI
IF ALI HARD TO SAY – “INCAPABLE OF CONFORMING CONDUCT TO LAW”
MAJOR PROBLEM WITH ALL
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN NGRI NO LONGER MENTALLY ILL?
DO NGRI GET OFF TOO EASILY?
E.G. TEMPORARY M.I. AND SEVERE CRIME
OR ARE THEY WORSE OFF? (MCMURPHY)
SEVERE M.I. BUT MINOR CRIME
TORSNEY V. STATE OF N.Y.
TORSNEY NYC COP WHO SHOT UNARMED 15 YR. OLD FOR NO REASON
FOUND NGRI
HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRISTS SAID NOT M.I.
COURT SAID HAD TO RELEASE
JONES V. U.S.
JONES ARRESTED FOR PETTY THEFT (MISDEMEANOR W/MAX. 1 YEAR)
OBVIOUSLY PSYCHOTIC AND PLED NGRI AND COMMITTED TO M.H.
AT HEARING AFTER 1 YEAR STILL CONSIDERED M.I.
COURT SAID STAY IN HOSPITAL
RESULT OF NGRI
SOMETIMES TOO LENIENT – TORSNEY
SOMETIMES TOO HARSH – JONES
OVERALL, ABOUT SAME LENGTH OF TIME
MORE M.I. NOW IN CJS
MANY M.I. NOW FOUND IN JAILS AND PRISONS (10% - 15%)
RATE HIGHER THAN GENERAL POP.
RESULT OF DI?
HARD TO TELL
THREE GROUPS
1. MINOR OFFENDERS – LOITERING, DISTURBING PEACE, SHOPLIFTERS
MAJORITY OF M.I. IN CJS
2. VIOLENT SUBSTANCE ABUSERS
3. PSYCHOTIC MENTALLY ILL
WHEN OFF MEDS AND HAVE PSYCHOTIC EPISODE
MAJOR PROBLEMS
LACK OF DIVERSION PROGRAMS FROM CJS
LACK OF MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT IN CJS
UNWILLINGNESS OF MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS TO TREAT OFFENDERS
