insanity_mso_08 - 1 Insanity, MSO, and Related Issues...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 1 Insanity, MSO, and Related Issues Russell M. Bauer, Ph.D. July 24, 2008 2 3 Mental State at Offense • One of the most difficult and bloodcurdling tasks of a forensic psychologist difficult – it is RETROSPECTIVE – MOTIVATIONAL factors affect current presentation • Requires “investigative reconstruction” of crime events, often involving information psychologists are reconstruction” not used to reviewing 4 History of Insanity Defense • • • • • • • 5 Basic Concept: free will Mc’Naghten Case (1840’s) – emphasizes cognitive understanding Mc’ (1840’ “Irresistable Impulse” rule – volitional control standard Impulse” Durham vs. United States: “product” of mental disease or defect (1954); also known as the “but for” test product” for” American Law Institute Model Penal Code: cognition (appreciation) vs. volition (control) (appreciation) 1984 Congress: wrongfulness appreciation VERY rare defense (<<l%, and of that, rarely successful) Pre-M’Naghten • 13th century: “man must be totally deprived of his understanding and memory so as not to know what he is doing, no more than an infant, brute or a wild beast” (Melton, 1997, p. 190). 6 M’Naghten • 1843: murder of Prime Minister’s assistant Minister’ • M’Naghten acquitted based on mental disorder • House of Lords later ruled: “To establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the clearly time of committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as under not to know the nature and quality of the act that he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong” wrong” • M’Naghten committed to Bedlam, eventually died in another hospital after decades of “treatment” treatment” 7 Example • Defendant bites another person because he believes him to be a piece of chicken (crime: piece battery) – Could prove insanity under Prong 1 • Defendant bites another person, knowing him to be a person, but not knowing that biting is painful and can injure the other person – Could prove insanity under Prong 2 8 American Law Institute (ALI, 1955) • 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 wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the substantial either appreciate or requirements of the law • Changes from before – – – – 9 Change implication of “full” (did not know) to “substantial” (appreciate) full” substantial” Change “know” to “appreciate” know” appreciate” Change “criminality” to “wrongfulness” criminality” wrongfulness” Essentially eliminated repeated acts in and of themselves (e.g., APD) “Irresistable Impulse” • The defendant is not legally responsible: – if by reason of the duress of mental disease he had so far lost the power to choose between right and wrong, and to avoid doing the act in question that his free agency was destroyed – act the product of mental disease solely • Problem: how do you distinguish an “irresistable impulse” from an “impulse not impulse” resisted”? resisted” 10 Three Variations on Irresistable Impulse • (l) Defendant 'acted from an irresistible and uncontrollable impulse'; • (2) Defendant 'lost the power to choose between the right and wrong, and to avoid doing the act in question, as that his free agency was at the time destroyed'; • (3) Defendant's 'will . . . has been otherwise than voluntarily so completely destroyed that his actions are not subject to it, but are beyond his control.' 11 Durham v. United States • Source of the “product test” test” – simply that “an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or defect” defect” • Problems: – what is a “product”? (i.e., what is the causative chain?) product” – Which mental diseases qualify? • Case eventually overturned; now of historical significance only 12 State Interpretations • • • • • 13 Generally Excluded Mental Disorders • • • • 14 One-half use M’Naghten OneOne-third of states use ALI OneThree states have reference to “irresistable impulse” impulse” Four states have abolished insanity defense altogether (Montana, Idaho, Utah, Kansas) NH: “product” of mental disease or defect” product” defect” Antisocial personality Adjustment disorder “Compulsive” disorders Compulsive” Seizure disorders allowable in some jurisdictions, not in others 1984 Congress (Insanity Defense Reform Act) • Reform in response to Hinckley verdict (aquitted on volitional prong of ALI) (aquitted • 1980’s ABA and APA standards: “A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, and 1980’ as a result of mental disease or defect, that person was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct” conduct” • 1984 Congress adopts ABA standard (cognitive prong of ALI) – Defense has burden (affirmative defense) – clear and convincing evidence needed 15 Unsuccessful Insanity Pleas • • • • • • • • • 16 Kip Kinkel, l7, shot 29 people in an Oregon school rampage in 1998; heard “command” voices; abandoned insanity defense, got 25+ years David Berkowitz, “Son of Sam” killings NYC, sentenced to 365 years in jail Ted Bundy; US serial killer l974-l978; responsible for an estimated 40 murders; executed in FL electric chair Sirhan Sirhan: murdered Robert Kennedy l968; convicted, sentenced to death; commuted to life in prison Henry Lee Lucas; serial murderer in FL l982 Charles Manson; cult leader; sentenced to death; CA suspends death penalty later John Wayne Gacy, used DID defense; convicted of 33 murders in l980; executed l994 Ted Kaczynski, Unabomber, thought to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia; 4 consecutive life sentences Jeffrey Dahmer; necrophilia, cannibalism, l60-page rambling confession; convicted l992, killed in prison l994 A notable exception • Andrea Yates: drowned children in bathtub; history of postpartum depression, convicted in 2003; conviction overturned on appeal, was found NGRI in second trial 17 Issues in Insanity Defense • All variations require mental disease or defect • Wrong but morally justified – wrongfulness can be interpreted as moral, not criminal, only with specific facts (in some jurisdictions) • Law does not distinguish conscious from unconscious reasoning • Meaning of the terms “know” and “wrong” • Irresistable Impluse: “officer at the elbow test” • Measures of criminal responsibility: R-CRAS 18 What the Jury is Told (CA) • The defendant has been found guilty of the crime of _____. You must now determine whether [he] [she] was legally sane or legally insane at the time of the must commission of the crime. This is the only issue for you to determine in this proceeding. determine • You may consider evidence of [his] [her] mental condition before, during and after the time of the commission of the crime, as tending to show the defendant's before, tending mental condition at the time the crime was committed. • [Mental illness and mental abnormality, in whatever form they may appear, are not necessarily the same as legal insanity. A person may be mentally ill or may person mentally abnormal and yet not be legally insane]. • A person is legally insane when by reason of mental disease or defect [he] [she] was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of [his] [her] defect nature act or incapable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the crime. • The defendant has the burden of proving [his] [her] legal insanity at the time of the commission of the crime by a preponderance of the evidence. insanity 19 Burden of Proof • One-third of states require prosecution to prove sanity “beyond reasonable doubt” (90Onedoubt” (9095%) • Most remaining states require defendant to prove insanity by “preponderance of evidence” (5l%) evidence” • AZ and federal courts: defendant must prove sanity by “clear and convincing” evidence convincing” (75%) 20 Basic Elements of Crime Behavior Relevant to Insanity Defense • • • 21 physical conduct of crime (“actus reus”) reus” mental state (level of intent) associated with the crime (“mens rea”) rea” to convice beyond reasonable doubt, state must prove that the defendant committed the actus reus with the requisite mens rea for that crime Defenses Related to Sanity • Automatism Defense – acts committed “involuntarily” involuntarily” – this is different from sanity • automatons are “unaware” (but will be held responsible if ailment had previously existed and steps were not unaware” taken to prevent or manage it) • prosecution bears burden of negating automatism beyond reasonable doubt reasonable • no mental disease or defect required 22 Defenses Related to Sanity • Diminished Capacity – mental state essentially defined culpability; planning a crime involves more intent than accidentally committing one involves – specific vs. general intent – Mens Rea components: • • • • 23 Purpose: conscious intent Knowledge: awareness, but not conscious intent Recklessness: disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk Negligence: not aware of a risk, but should have been aware Defenses Related to Sanity • Intoxication - generally not viewed positively by the courts unless accidental • Guilty but Mentally Ill - may be sentenced to any term appropriate to the offense with the the opportunity to receive treatment during the period of incarceration incarceration 24 MSO Evaluation • • • • • 25 Place emphasis on information related to crime scenario (contains mens rea information) (contains Statements/confessions are important, but must be treated with caution caution Brief MSE (for diagnosis) Discuss crime with defendant Prior records relevant to diagnosis Phases of MSO Evaluation • • • • Review of Records Intro, orientation, rapport building Developmental/Sociocultural history Assessment of current mental status – May or may not require neuropsychological assessment – Should stage assessment relative to alleged behavioral shortcomings shortcomings • Questions/descriptions of alleged crime ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/01/2011 for the course CLP 7934 taught by Professor Staff during the Summer '08 term at University of Florida.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online