Leark's Study Guide 2

Front 1

M'Naghten Two Prongs

Back 1

Cannot appreciate the nature or quality of the act

Front 2

N'Naughten replaced

Back 2

Wild Beast Standard

Front 3

Wild Beast Standard

Back 3

For someone to be insane, the standard for this immoral behavior, must be that this individual is so totally depraved of understanding and memory and to know what he was doing he knows no more than an infant, a brute or a wild beast. Such a person should not be punished.

Front 4

M'Naughten Case was about...

Back 4

an improved wild beast test standard. Defendant had fixed delusional belief that the ruling political party were out to get him personally and that they were going to murder him. In an act of defense, he travels to London and kills the prime minister to stop his own persecution or perhaps his murder. Shot secretary instead with a pistol. Defense team argued insanity test and prosecution agreed that he was mentally ill, but did not meet the wild beast test as his mental illness is not severe enough. Expert witnesses testify that he’s insane because his delusions make him unable to determine right or wrong.

Front 5

State v. Pike

Back 5

becomes a product rule. A slight derivation from McNaughton. Court could find a person insane if the crime was the offspring or product of a mental disease in a defendant.

Front 6

Durham v. US

Back 6

1954. Applied in the federal courts. Defendant would be found insane if the act was the product of a mental disease or defect. Durham rule continues to be met with opposition in the 1950s.

Front 7

McDonald v. US

Back 7

1962 - mental illness or defect had to substantially impair the defendant.

Front 8

MPC - Model Penal Code. P. 337.

Back 8

P. 337. - person is not responsible for criminal responsibility if because of mental deficit, individual lacks ability to conform to requirements of the law. Any mental disease or defect that is characterized by repeated criminal behavior is excluded from consideration. Irrisistable impulse test.

Front 9

Hendricks v. Kansas

Back 9

the court stated that it was okay to confine someone due to antisocial behavior and this is not against their constitutional rights. Hendricks had an extensive history of molesting children.

Can confine individuals if it is clearly visible that the individual might reoffend in the near future-clear and convincing evidence
Can be held against your will even if you have not commted a crime. Civil issue not a criminal issue

Some loss of control is sufficient. The lack of control of sexual violence did not have to be absolute.

"any person who has been convicted of or charged with a sexually violent offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in the predatory acts of sexual violence."

1) a presently confined person who, like Hendricks, "has been convicted of a sexually violent offense" and isscheduled for release; (2)a person who has been "charged with a sexually violent offense" but has been found incompetent to stand trial; (3) a person who has been found "not guilty by reason of insanity of a sexually violent offense"; and (4) a person found "not guilty" of a sexually violent offense because of a mental disease or defect. § 59— 29a03(a), § 22-3221 (1995).

Could be indefinitely in theory until they can prove they are no longer a danger

Front 10

ALI_ Penal code

Back 10

If at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect the defendednt lacks sustancial capacity to either ability to apreicate such conduct or to conform to the requirement of the law

Front 11

Browner v. us

Back 11

DC accepts the model penal code as standard for insanity

Front 12

Hinckley

Back 12

Attempted assassination
Aquitted on the penal code. Large public outcry.
Congress enacted federal state standards.
Tried to shoot Reagan, missed.
Said that he got the idea from the movie Taxi Cab

Front 13

Guilty but mentally ill

Back 13

NGRI Those who frequently are found to be unfit to stand trial tend to be more likely to get a final ruling of NGRI

Front 14

Daniel white
Twinkie defense

Back 14

Prosecutions claim was crimes were premeditated
Entered city hall through basement window, to avoid detection of metal detector at entrance. He was a politician as a city supervisor, wanted job back. Talked to commissioner, but he did not agree because he was a political reliability, so he kills him. Finds his competitor, Harvey milk, kills him too. Sought for a double execution for the murders. Schmitz focused on emotional trauma of white. Uses uncontrollable impulses based on his beliefs of all American lifestyle being contrasted by milks homosexual lifestyle.

Front 15

Clark v arizona 2006

Back 15

Supreme court rule az statute was unconstitutional because it eliminated one aspect of the m’naughten standard
Eric clark- driving residential neighborhood, loud music, pulled over by police officer, shot officer and run away. Clarks defense did not deny he shot him, he claimed he was NGRI because he was paranoid schizophrenic, used psychologists and city people to corroborate his symptoms. Delusions of aliens and government officials. He told people he would kill officers, blaring his music was a way to lure officers in.
1. az definition of insanity was unconstitutional because it was too narrow and eliminated the part that focused on the defendants knowledge of the nature and quality of his actions. NOT A MANDATION FOR IT TO BE IN LAW
_court ruled no constitutional requirement to have any specific language. Nature or quality (capacity)- because if he did not know what he was doing was bad he did not know what he was doing was wrong, couldn’t appreciate the wrongfulness.
2. Lacks the specific intent, mens rea. claimed a violation of his due process rights
- ruled against him in that the mental illness expert testimony could cloud the jury from making a decision
Supreme court ruled- AZ’s decision was not unreasonable and not a violation of his rights (AZ law-can use testimony to discuss mental illness by lay person but not by an expert) expert witness is restricted to open testimony but can have a report written.

Front 16

Risk assessment

Back 16

Doesn’t tell who is most at risk for violence but who is least likely to be violent. That can illiminate part of the pool
Clinical based model- clinical assessment
Actuarial based- pool of data based on statistics
Collected in a psychiatric unit under the confinements of a prison unit and on an individual who had narrow degree of freedon in a mental health facility-how can we use this to predict his behavior outside that structured setting

Front 17

General Intent

Back 17

for example going into a house to rob, but raping and killing.

Front 18

Specific intent

Back 18

Going to into a house to murder and rape people.