Insanity and Criminal Responsibility

1. Insanity and Criminal Responsibility Chapter 7

2. Rationale for Insanity • focus on mental state at the time of the crime • a legal compromise to a moral dilemma • absence of mens rea • Also called mental state at the time of the offense (MSO)

3. Insanity Standards • Wild Beast Standard • One of first formalized standards • Rex v. Arnold (1724) • must be totally deprived of understanding and memory, and not know what he is doing anymore than an infant, brute, or a wild beast

4. M’Naghten • Disease of the mind • Did not know what he was doing • Focus on nature and quality • Did not know what he was doing was wrong • Most conservative of the three modern standards • widely adopted in the United States • Many later added the irresistible impulse test

5. Product Rule and Durham • “an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or mental defect” • Most liberal of the modern standards • Problems with the rule • Assumed universal constructs of “mental disease/defect” • Difficult to determine whether the criminal act was the product of a mental disease/defect

6. ALI Rule and Brawner • “at the time of such conduct, as a result of a mental disease or defect, (lacks) substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform to his conduct to the requirement of the law” • Volitional, affective, and cognitive elements • Compromise between M’Naghten and Durham

7. Insanity Defense Reform Act (1984) • IDRA • Federal law passed in reaction to shooting of President Regan and associates • removed the volitional prong of ALI • barred ultimate issue testimony • placed the burden of proof on the defendant • standard of proof became clear and convincing evidence

8. Guilty But Mentally Ill (GBMI) • originated as an additional option • Defendant may be found GBMI if • guilty of the offense • mentally ill at the time of the offense • not legally insane at the time of the offense • GBMI defendant was to receive identical sentence as someone found guilty, but begin sentence in hospital • In reality, GBMI defendants receive more strict supervision upon release and do not receive proper mental health treatment

9. Challenges to the Insanity Defense • Four states have abolished the insanity defense • Clark v. Arizona (2006) • Arizona did not wish to include a cognitive element in its insanity standard • Court ruled that Arizona’s definition of insanity, no matter how narrowly defined, was appropriate • There continues to be no constitutional requirement for an insanity standard

10. Studies Assessing the Insanity Standard in Mock Jurors • Varying standards have little impact on juror verdicts • Reasons for lack of differences • Low comprehension of jury instructions • Prior knowledge about insanity • Standards may be even more complex than previous standards • Lack of deliberation in most prior studies • Availability of GBMI option has a significant impact on verdict distribution

11. Insanity Myths • Standard makes a significant difference • Frequency of the defense • Severity of mental illness • Severity of crime • Disposition of insanity acquittals • Danger of acquittees

12. Evaluations of Insanity • One of most difficult assessments in forensics • Legal doctrine is often unclear • Focus is retrospective • Greater reliance on third party information • No universally accepted interviews or psychological tests

13. Common procedures for Insanity Evaluations • Interview, forensic related instruments, and collateral information • Borum & Grisso (1996) survey identified central elements • Psychiatric history • Current mental status • Formal mental status exam • Any psychotropic medication • Psychological testing • Mental health records • Police information • Prior diagnosis • Any alcohol or substance use • Defendant’s description of the offense • Collateral description of the offense

14. Reliability and Validity of Insanity Evaluations • A great deal of agreement among mental health professionals about decisions • Individual factors may introduce bias though • Studies examining validity of insanity decisions are rare and difficult to conduct but suggest respectable results • Hard to study validity of Insanity measures because there is no “gold standard”

15. Forensic Specific Measures • Mental State at the Time of the Offense Screening Evaluation (MSE) • Semi-structured measure to assess issues related to criminal responsibility (i.e. insanity) • Lack of research on instrument • Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (RCRAS) • 30-item measure divided into 5 components • Recommended for use with ALI and M’Naghten standards • Criticized for interrater reliability, emphasis on ultimate issue, quantification of judgment • better than any alternative

16. Malingering and Insanity • Threat to malingering appears significant given the stakes in insanity cases • Lack of evidence to suggest rates are higher than other forensic areas • Many measures exist for the assessment of malingering in these cases • Some say that failure to use a standard measure does not fulfill Daubert criteria

17. Other Issues of Criminal Responsibility • Automatism • Some criminal acts may occur involuntarily • Diminished capacity • Testimony regarding mental status at the time of the crime without claiming insanity • Intoxication • Can’t be the basis for insanity but can be used to can be a basis for insufficient mens rea