Finally, it may also be interesting to note that the defense is rarely successful, whether in a jury trial or a trial before a judge. There are a number of reasons for this, most of which are largely speculative about what jurors and judges think about defending insanity. In Virginia, Lorena Bobbitt was tried in 1994 for the crime of cutting off her husband`s penis. Bobbitt has pleaded not guilty to grievous bodily harm caused by mental illness. Bobbitt was able to establish the irresistible defense of impulsive insanity by presenting evidence of years of domestic violence, forced abortion, and rape on the night of the incident (Bell, R., 2010; law.jrank.org, 2010). After the jury was found not guilty of mental illness, Bobbitt was assessed, declared mentally competent and released (Bell, R., 2010). This analysis focuses on the cognition of an actor. The test is divided into two components, each of which is individually sufficient to support a foolish defense. First, a defendant is considered mentally ill if he or she was unable to know what he or she was doing at the time the crime in question was committed.
This conclusion coincides with the fundamental concept of guilt in criminal law. A defendant is not guilty of an act that he did not know he was committing because of a mental disability. In several states and at the federal level, a defendant found not guilty of mental illness is automatically committed to a treatment facility until it is determined that mental health has been restored (18 U.S.C., 2010). This is also the approach of the Model Penal Code. As stated in article 4.08, paragraph 1, of the Model Penal Code: “If an accused is acquitted of mental illness or lack of spirit which precludes responsibility, the court shall order that he be entrusted to the care of the Commissioner for Mental Health [Public Health] for placement in an appropriate facility for custody, care and treatment.” One of the most famous recent uses of mad defense came to the United States against Hinckley via the assassination of then-President Ronald Reagan. Created by FindLaw`s team of writers and legal writers| Last updated January 18, 2019 The jury found that Hinckley had a mental disability that did not make him guilty of mental illness, but the nation exploded with outrage at the verdict. Less than a month after the verdict, Congress held hearings on the mental illness defense. Congress has followed suit with legislation to shift the burden from prosecution to defense in terms of evidence of mental illness and limit the definition of the mentally ill. States followed suit and amended state law to match Congress` findings.
Today, most states put the burden of defense to prove insanity, some states have a guilty but crazy verdict, and Utah has abolished defense altogether. M`Naghten`s defense against mental illness is cognitive and focuses on the conscience of the accused rather than the ability to control behavior. Defence requires two elements. First, the accused must be mentally disabled at the time of the crime. The mental defect may be called a “defect of reason” or a “disease of the mind” depending on the jurisdiction (Iowa Code, 2010). Second, the trial judge must conclude that, because of the mental disability, the defendant did not know the nature and quality of the offence, or that the act was wrong. Many defendants suffer from mental illness and may present evidence of this illness, such as psychiatric or secular testimony. Often, a mental disorder manifests itself in the behaviour of the accused in the given circumstances.
However, legal insanity is different from medical insanity and is usually much harder to detect. The reason for creating a different standard of legal insanity is the purpose of the prosecution, which is discussed in Chapter 1 “Introduction to Criminal Law.” Prosecutions should both deter and neutralize. While the purpose of a medical diagnosis is to eventually cure the defendant`s disorder, the purpose of the criminal law is to punish the defendant. Thus, the conduct of the accused is not excused if the accused or the company can benefit from punishment. Currently, states rely on four different tests to determine whether a defendant is legally mentally ill. Your state`s laws determine which of these four tests applies. In 2002, 16 states, including Maryland, had a mental illness defense that allows defendants to qualify on VI alone.17 Other states have instituted an intent test to determine whether a defendant meets the criteria for another verdict, guilty but mentally ill. (People convicted but with mental illness receive the same criminal penalties, including incarceration or death, as those convicted simply do, but they undergo an assessment to determine if they need treatment within the mental health service.) 18 In Maryland, a defendant is not criminally liable if he or she “is unable [1] to recognize the criminal character of such conduct by reason of a mental disorder or intellectual disability; or [2] adapt this behavior to legal requirements. 19 While the “irresistible drive” test deals with a real problem in the context of M`Naghten, it raises several practical concerns. First, unlike the cognitive core of the defense of insanity, the deliberate component of insanity is supported by a less robust scientific literature. As a result, it becomes more difficult to assess the veracity of a defendant`s allegation in the absence of clear scientific evidence. In addition, the criterion of “irresistible impulses” may be too comprehensive.
Defendants who work in genuine psychological conditions but do not completely impede self-control may be exempted from criminal responsibility. The concept of irresistible impulse as a factor leading to madness has been around for a long time. In Parsons versus State (1886), a test of will was proposed as a complement to the rule of time folly, the M`Naughten rule. At the time, it was believed that the M`Naughten Rule did not take into account that if a mentally ill accused could not lose the ability to understand his actions and their illegality, he might not be able to control his behaviour. In this case, he said, “Although he is aware [of the nature of the action] and is able to distinguish right from wrong, his will, the determining part of his mind, has been so completely destroyed that his actions are not subject to him but beyond his control.” 4 The essential capacity test is the defence to mental illness created by the Model Criminal Code. The Model Penal Code was completed in 1962. By 1980, about half of the Länder and the Federal Government had adopted the substantial capacity test (also known as the Model Criminal Code or ALI defence) (Rolf, C.