How does someone plead insanity

For example, a scholarly debate exists addressing whether the "wrongfulness" central to the M'Naghten analysis comprises tenets of legality or morality.

Another prominent criticism takes objection to the categorical approach the M'Naghten test employs. By focusing exclusively on cognitive incapacity, the M'Naghten test is not well suited for treating more nuanced forms of psychological disorders, particularly those involving volitional impairment.

Traditionally, the M'Naghten test has been associated with schizophrenia and psychotic disorders. The M'Naghten rule became the standard for insanity in the United States and the United Kingdom and is still the standard for insanity in almost half of the states.

In contrast to the emphasis on cognition central to the M'Naghten test, the "Irresistible Impulse" test focuses on the volitional components of insanity. Various courts have struggled to address criminal defendants who, while comprehending the wrongfulness of their actions, are incapable of self-control because of a mental disease or defect.

To levy punishment against a defendant unable to control his actions appears at odds with the preeminent tenets of criminal justice. The move towards volition alleviates this tension. Under the "Irresistible Impulse" test a jury may find a defendant not guilty by reason of insanity where the defendant was laboring under a mental disease or defect that compelled him to commit the object offense.

This test is well-suited for persons suffering from manias and paraphilias. While treating a genuine issue within the M'Naghten framework, the "Irresistible Impulse" test creates several practical concerns. First, unlike the cognitive prong of the insanity defense, the volitional component of insanity is substantiated by a less robust scientific literature. Consequently, the evaluating the veracity of a defendant's claim becomes more difficult in the absence of unequivocal scientific findings.

Moreover, the "Irresistible Impulse" test may be over-inclusive. Defendants laboring under psychological conditions, which, while genuine, do not completely inhibit self-control, may be exonerated of criminal liability. Monte Durham was a year-old who had been in and out of prison and mental institutions since he was He was convicted for housebreaking in , and his attorney appealed. Although the district court judge had ruled that Durham's attorneys had failed to prove he didn't know the difference between right and wrong, the federal appellate judge chose to use the case to reform the M'Naghten rule.

Citing leading psychiatrists and jurists of the day, the appellate judge stated that the M'Naghten rule was based on "an entirely obsolete and misleading conception of the nature of insanity.

The Durham rule states "that an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect. The implementation of this test was initially seen as a progressive development.

Specifically, the Durham rule moved away from legal formalisms and emphasized scientific psychological evaluations and evidence. This approach emphasized expert testimony and largely left the jury to follow the professional opinions provided.

So long as a professional concluded that the defendant was subject to a mental disease, a finding of insanity likely followed. Problems quickly emerged, however, and the Durham test fell out of favor. First, the test revealed itself to be frequently conclusory and deprived the jury of their decision-making role.

A finding of insanity was left to the discretionary findings of trained professionals who were largely unrestricted in their methodological approach. The lack of any clear definition for essential terms like "mental disease or defect" exacerbated this issue and led to inconsistency as different professionals came to disparate conclusions. Moreover, the test proved over-inclusive. She drives her two sons, aged three and five, out to the lake. She puts the car in park, gets out, and then puts it in gear, watching as it drives into the water.

Both of her sons drown. Later that day, Susan files a police report stating that a stranger kidnapped her children at gunpoint. Susan recants her kidnapping story and admits she killed her children. However, she claims she is not guilty by reason of insanity. Susan tried to mislead the police, demonstrating her awareness that she had done something wrong.

Andrea, a diagnosed schizophrenic, drowns five of her young children in the bathtub. Andrea promptly phones and tells the operator that her children are dead. The operator dispatches an emergency call to law enforcement.

Andrea thereafter claims she is not guilty for killing her children by reason of insanity. Andrea suffers from a mental defect , schizophrenia. In addition, there is no evidence indicating Andrea knew her conduct was wrong , such as an attempted escape, or cover-up.

In fact, Andrea herself contacted law enforcement and immediately told them about her criminal acts. Another variation of the insanity defense is the irresistible impulse defense. This defense has lost popularity over the years and is rejected by most of the states and the federal government 18 U.

However, the second element adds the concept of volition , or free choice. White, The challenge for the trier of fact in an irresistible impulse jurisdiction is distinguishing between conduct that can be controlled and conduct that cannot. Her plan is to subdue each sister with the stun gun and then hack off her hair.

As she arrives at the house, she sees Agnes, one of her sorority sisters, trip and fall in the parking lot, ripping her cashmere sweater and scraping her chin.

Feeling a stab of pity, Jolene ignores Agnes and walks hurriedly toward the building. You look like you just rolled out of bed! Jolene claims she is not guilty for assault and battery of Ashley by reason of insanity. If Jolene attacked Ashley in a jurisdiction that recognizes the irresistible impulse insanity defense, she probably will not be successful with her claim.

Jolene has been diagnosed with paranoia , which is a mental defect or disease. However, Jolene seems aware that shooting someone with a stun gun and cutting off her hair is wrong because she spared Agnes based on pity. Thus Jolene is cognitive of the difference between right and wrong and has the will to suppress criminal behavior, defeating any claim of insanity under the irresistible impulse insanity defense.

The substantial capacity test is the insanity defense created by the Model Penal Code. The Model Penal Code was completed in By , approximately half of the states and the federal government adopted the substantial capacity test also called the Model Penal Code or ALI defense Rolf, C. However, in , John Hinckley successfully claimed insanity using the substantial capacity test in his federal trial for the attempted murder of then-President Ronald Reagan.

The defense has two elements. In general, it is easier to establish insanity under the substantial capacity test because both the cognitive and volitional requirements are scaled down to more flexible standards. Instead, the defendant must lack substantial , not total, capacity. In addition, unlike the irresistible impulse insanity defense, the defendant must lack substantial , not total, ability to conform conduct to the requirements of the law.

Loreen has been diagnosed with psychosis and spent most of her life in a mental hospital. While at the mental hospital, Loreen made friends with many of the patients and health-care personnel. From time to time, Loreen would play jokes on these friends. Loreen was always reprimanded and often sternly punished for these escapades.

After her release from the mental hospital at age twenty-one, Loreen falls in love with Aidan, a man who works in a bookstore near her apartment. Loreen decides to make Aidan fall in love with her by feeding him a magic potion, which she concocts out of a mixture of her antidepressants.

Loreen buys a book from Aidan and casually asks if he would like her to buy him a coffee. While Aidan is sipping the coffee, Loreen declares her love for him. Loreen claims she is not guilty for battering Aidan by reason of insanity. If Loreen is in a jurisdiction that recognizes the substantial capacity test, she may be successful with her claim. Loreen has a mental disease or defect, psychosis. The Durham insanity defense is used only in New Hampshire and has been the established insanity defense in New Hampshire since the late s.

The Durham defense, also called the Durham rule or the product test , was adopted by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case of Durham v. However, the court failed to give definitions for product, mental disease, or mental defect. Thus the Durham insanity defense is extremely difficult to apply, and the D. Circuit rejected it in in the case of U. Brawner , F. In general, the Durham insanity defense relies on ordinary principles of proximate causation.

First, the defendant must have a mental disease or defect. The second element has to do with causation. Arianna has been diagnosed with paranoia. Arianna gradually becomes convinced that Nora is communicating secret messages to their coworkers when she is speaking to Arianna.

Arianna is genuinely frightened that Nora is telling their coworkers to kill her, and she decides she needs to defend herself. Arianna brings a gun to work one day, and when Nora begins talking to her about her tendency to take overlong lunches, Arianna pulls the gun out of her cubicle and shoots and kills Nora.

Arianna claims she is not guilty for killing Nora by reason of insanity. If Arianna killed Nora in New Hampshire, she might be successful with her claim.

Arianna has a mental disease or defect, paranoia. Thus a trier of fact could acquit Arianna on the grounds that her conduct is excusable under these circumstances.

There is generally a presumption that criminal defendants are sane , just as there is a presumption that they are innocent. Therefore, at a minimum, a defendant claiming insanity must produce evidence that rebuts this presumption. Some states require the prosecution to thereafter prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt or to a preponderance of evidence Elkins, J.

Post- Hinckley , many states have converted the insanity defense into an affirmative defense. The federal government and some other states require the defendant to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence , which is a higher standard than preponderance of evidence Tenn. Code Ann. A claim of diminished capacity differs from the insanity defense. Diminished capacity is an imperfect failure of proof defense recognized in a minority of jurisdictions. Diminished capacity could reduce a first-degree murder charge to second-degree murder or manslaughter if the defendant lacks the mental capacity to form the appropriate criminal intent for first-degree murder.

In California, diminished capacity was abolished as an affirmative defense after San Francisco Supervisor Dan White used it successfully in his trial for the murder of fellow Supervisor Harvey Milk. A jury convicted White of voluntary manslaughter rather than first-degree premeditated murder after reviewing evidence that proved his diet of junk food Twinkies created a chemical imbalance in his brain. This is an incredibly high standard and difficult to support in court.

You may have a great deal of evidence that you suffer from a mental illness. However, it can be difficult to show a judge or jury that you could not understand that what you were doing was a crime. How the insanity defense plays out in court can be a bit confusing. However, the prosecutor still has a job to do. They must try to prove you are guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Only if the jury finds you are guilty of the crime does it then move on to determine whether you can sufficiently prove your insanity.

If the prosecutor did not meet their burden, you are simply found innocent. It is essential that you understand a successful insanity defense does not win you freedom. In most circumstances, a defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity is committed to a hospital or institution for mental health treatment.

You could be confined to this facility for a great deal of time, even longer than a prison sentence would have been for the crime.