99. Insanity

Front 1

Sanity of the Accused will be at issue in Three Diff't Points in Time:

Back 1

1. Time of Trial
2. Time of Execution
3. Insanity at time of crime

Front 2

Issue at sanity of accused at time of trial is ...?

Back 2

their competency to stand trial.

Front 3

One is not competent to stand trial b/c of mental disease/defect IF....(2)

Back 3

1. He lacks the capacity to understand the proceedings v. him, OR

2. He lacks the capacity to assist in his own defense.

Front 4

Why do ALL STATES bar the execution of someone mentally insane?

Back 4

- A couple of propositions (Ford v. Wainwright) holds that execution of insane person violates Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of Constitution.

- Another said you couldn't do execution for someone who was mentally retarded.

• BASIS:
- Because state law prohibits it, or more importantly, Constitution prohibits it.


Arguments Against It:
□ Retributive force of capital punishment depends on D being aware that he's being punished.
□ Unfair to execute someone who doesn't understand what process is all about.
□ If that person were insane, not able to show some reasons why they are not guilty.
• Does he understand why he's being executed, what he's being punished for?

Front 5

Is insanity defense an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

OR

A DEFENSE THAN NEGATES MR?

Back 5

BOTH!!!!

Front 6

SELF DEFENSE IS A DEFENSE OF "LACK OF CAPACITY" (to participate in the system).

What does this mean?

Back 6

D does not have developed sense of right & wrong that allows him to play by rules we've set up by what's criminal and what's not criminal - he doesn't have ability to play by the rules.

Front 7

• Defense of _____ is also a defense of lack of capacity [compare this to insanity defense]

Back 7

infancy

Front 8

"DIMINISHED CAPACITY" (relevant to dimish crime)

There are four jxdns that do not have insanity defense as to "lack of capacity", but they do allow insanity to come in as evidence on trial of issue of...?

Back 8

Mens Rea

Front 9

Test of Insanity?

Back 9

(1) M'Naghten Test
(2) Irresistible Impulse Test
(3) Durham Test (Product Rule
(4) ALI Test
(5) New Federal Test (version of M'Nagten)

Front 10

" At the time of the act the D was laboring under such a defect of reason from a disease of the mind as to not know the nature and quality of his act, or, if he did know the nature and quality of his act, he did not know it was wrong"

Back 10

M'Naghten Test

Front 11

Possible Theories of which Insanity Might be Raised?

Back 11

THEORY 1: DEFENSE THAT NEGATES A MR ELEMENT
• IS IT A DEFENSE BC STATE RECOGNIZES IT AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (AN EXCUSE TO RELIEVE OF CRIM LIABILITY) EVEN THOUGH NOT NEGATE MR?
• OR "LACKS A CAPACITY" DEFENSE?

Front 12

Process of Commitment for Insanity?

Back 12

(1) Civil
(2) Automatic

Front 13

The more common form of commitment?

Back 13

Automatic Commitment

Front 14

Criteria for Civil Commitment?

Back 14

(person has mental disability at time trial ends and at time of commitment & person danger to self or to others) -- then committed.

Front 15

BOP for Civil Commitment?

Back 15

Clear and convincing evidence (somewhere between civil standard of preponderance of evidence and criminal case of conviction - beyond reasonable doubt)

Front 16

Advocates of Automatic Commitment say...?

Back 16

System of A.C. gives public maximum protection (b/c they go automatically)

Front 17

Critics of Automatic Commitment..?

Back 17

Does insanity at point of crime = insanity at point of acquittal?

Front 18

Who can raise the insanity Defense (3)?

(Jones case)

Back 18

D raise this defense (most instances)

Gov't raise this defense

court on its own raise defense

Front 19

Why do we allow the court to raise the defense?

Back 19

Protect the public (if he goes to prison may go back out on streets)

Gov't has duty to see to it that blameless people not punished (people supporting gov't having ability to raise the defense)

Front 20

Dominant View with raising defense?

Back 20

It's up to D to raise defense on their own!

Front 21

What's a bifurcated trial?

Back 21

□ Whereby you decide the insanity issue by itself & make that decision

□ Once that decision is made, if he's not guilty by reason of insanity -- that's the end of it.

□ If he's found to be insane -- go to another trial to determine if he's guilty or not.

Front 22

Jones talks about why this ought to a decision left to D...?

Back 22

□ D might prefer to take his chances with jail sentence.
□ D may not want to go into court and admit he has this mental illness/insanity
□ (Dominant) based on Alfred & Furreta:
® D has constitutional right to defend himself at trial (Furretta) and
® Allows D to plead guilty to a crime even though he believes he is not guilty (Alfred) [but I do think that evidence shows that I am guilty beyond reasonable doubt…so I'll plead guilty]
◊ D might have some tactical reasons (bifurcated trial)
► Might not want to raise in bifurcated because raising insanity defense might hurt me when I'm arguing "even if you find that I'm sane, I shouldn't be convicted"