Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
12 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Not guilty by reason of NGRI |
a(n) plea/affirmative defense for which the attorney must provide clear and convincing proof in order to mitigate or acquit the defendant's criminal responsibility for their act due to mental illness |
|
|
Mens rea |
able to form a rational intent/motive to commit a crime; the "guilty mind" |
|
|
Durham Rule (repealed in 72 bc it was too broad); today Product rule |
not guilty by reason of insanity; criminal act was the product of a mental disease/illness |
|
|
Sell v. US |
established specific conditions for the state to meet in order to permit forced treatment of medication of a defendant
|
|
|
Sell v. US case |
Charles Thomas Sell was charged with fifty-six counts of mail fraud, six counts of Medicaid fraud, and one count of money-laundering. That year a federal judge found Sell competent to stand trial and released him on bail. However, Sell's mental status deteriorated while he was on bail, and his bail was revoked in 1998, Sell was later charged with one count of conspiring to commit the attempted murder of the Federal Bureau of Investigation officer arresting him. In early 1999 Sell requested a competency hearing before standing trial for the fraud and attempted murder charges. Sell was given a competency evaluation by the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners (Medical Center), and in 1999 was found incompetent to stand trial. Sell was ordered to be hospitalized to determine whether he would be able to become competent so as to allow his trial to proceed. While in the hospital, Sell refused to take the antipsychotic medication prescribed by the Medical Center staff. The Medical Center sought to involuntarily medicate Sell. On June 9, 1999, an administrative hearing was held before a medical hearing officer who concluded that antipsychotic medication was the treatment of choice based on the fact that Dr. Sell's "delusional thinking could make him dangerous." Sell filed a court challenge to stop the hospital's decision to give him the drug involuntarily. The question of whether the drug could be administered involuntarily was the subject of several other hearings. In August 2000 the magistrate found that Sell was a danger to himself and others, authorized Sell to be forcibly medicated on the grounds that only medication would reduce his dangerousness, that any serious side effects could be treated, that the benefits to Sell were greater than the risks, and that the medication were substantially likely to restore Sell's competence. |
|
|
M'Naughten Rule |
A test applied to determine whether a person accused of a crime was sane at the time of its commission and, therefore, criminally responsible for the wrongdoing. |
|
|
M'Naughten Rule case |
Daniel McNaughton shot and killed the secretary of the British Prime Minister, believing that the Prime Minister was conspiring against him. The court acquitted McNaughton "by reason of insanity," and he was placed in a mental institution for the rest of his life. The rule created a presumption of sanity, unless the defense proved "at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the 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 what he was doing was wrong." |
|
|
Volition clause |
unable to resist an irresistible implies to commit the criminal act; often added to legal definitions of sanity |
|
|
Malingering |
faking symptoms of a mental illness |
|
|
Guilty but mentally ill |
a judgment where the jury acknowledges the individual is seriously mentally ill but still guilty in the hope that they ill receive treatment |
|
|
Ultimate issue testimony |
the testimony by the expert witness that an individual is or is not sane; unethical for an expert witness to do this |
|
|
Actus Reus |
the actual criminal act; seldom disputed in trials where the defendant's state of mind at the time of the crime is an issue to be considered by the jury |
