I’ve got a question about how the insanity defense works. It’s my understanding that to qualify as legally insane, you must be unable to distinguish right from wrong. (Or at least have been unable at the time.) How does this work? Would anything that qualifies as a sense of right and wrong make one legally sane, even if that sense would be considered truly fucked up by most people?
For example, what if an animal-rights supporter too extreme even for PETA killed a bunch of people in a McDonald’s because he thought eating meat was evil and he was really, truly doing the right thing to save the poor cows that asked for his help? Obviously, this guy’s got some clinical issues, what with the talking cows and all, but he does have a sense of right and wrong, even if it’s a twisted one. Should an insanity defense apply?
Of course, if the example actually makes things more confusing rather than less, then let me know and I’ll try to come up with something else. What I’m looking for is more of the general guidelines for these cases, rather than an examination of that particular situation. The example was just the best thing I could come up with to try and clarify my question without risking the thread being hijacked into a debate.
I don’t think that even legal experts have a good handle on what it takes to be legally insane. When the TV news drones were asking psychology experts about the Andrea Yates case, most of them seemed to agree that the legal standards for insanity are very outdated, and are badly out of synch with modern psychological knowledge. Of course, noone agreed on what the standards should be…
-
“How does this work?”
-
“Would anything that qualifies as a sense of right and wrong make one legally sane, even if that sense would be considered truly fucked up by most people?”
-
“For example, what if an animal-rights supporter too extreme even for PETA killed a bunch of people in a McDonald’s because he thought eating meat was evil and he was really, truly doing the right thing to save the poor cows that asked for his help?”
-
“Obviously, this guy’s got some clinical issues, what with the talking cows and all, but he does have a sense of right and wrong, even if it’s a twisted one. Should an insanity defense apply?”
A lot of questions. This is what we have judges for. The insanity defense is based on a judge’s opinion in the M’Naughten case plus case law built up over the subsequent 200 years. What is and isn’t insanity is ultimately up to people judging the case. Although they are guided by precedent, views and change and decisions cannot be predicted.
IANAL, but it’s my understanding that the answers to 1. and 2. vary depending on where the case is being tried. In some states a “diminished capacity” to distinguish right and wrong would be sufficient, while other states require a more rigorous burden of proof. I don’t know what the federal standard is. I do know that Texas toughened its standards after the Hinckley case (see this story for more information).
- sounds more like a justification defense – in fact there was an episode of Law & Order where an activist for a PETA-like organization tried a defense like that. 4. would be more along the lines of insanity – the defendant could argue that her/his moral compass was destroyed by paranoid hallucinations.
IAAL (until recently, prosecutor)…
Legal insanity doesn’t work that way. First and foremost, since insanity is a state issue, “The answer may vary by jurisdiction.”
The measure of insanity generally fall into three broad categories:
-
Consciousness of guilt -
This is the Texas (and most of the West) standard. It is also the strictest. In order to be gauged insane, the defendant must not be able to comprehend the gravity of their offense. IOW, they do not realize that what they have done is wrong. In your example, if the D was so out of it that he honestly believed that it was right to kill carnivores, then he could be insane. -
Irresistible impulse -
This is a more lax standard. If the D could understand the “gravamen of his actions,” but was unable to control his actions due to mental disease or defect, then he would be insane. This standard was popular in the '70’s, but has been waning since Reagan was shot. A fair example of this would be Son of Sam. -
I don’t recall the term -
The third standard has not been adopted but is recommended by the Model Penal Code. If the mental defect compelled the D to act in spite of his knowledge that it was wrong. Think Hinckley.
**
Darn it, “varies by jurisdiction” is exactly what I was going to say until I out-clevered myself.
Does that mean that there’s no such thing as an insanity defense in a federal murder case?
Is it just me, or does standard 1. seem remarkably harsh? You could convict a three-year-old under that standard, couldn’t you?
My brain is aching from trying to recall my Criminal Law… okay, I think I have it right 
Reading this thread, it is apparent that some conceptual differences exist between the US defence of insanity and the defence as it operates here in Australia.
In Australian jurisdictions, the so-called defence of insanity is based on the concept of mental infirmity (intellectual disability, mental illness underlying pathological infirmity which can be short term or permanent), brain damage and senility). In my State, when one of these states deprives an actor of one or more of three capacities:
[ul][li]the capacity to understand his/her actions;[/li][li]the capacity control his/her actions; or[/li][li]the capacity know that he/she ought not to do the act[/ul]then there is no criminal responsibility.[/li]
The emphasis is not on an ability to distinguish between right and wrong or appreciate the gravity of one’s actions. We concentrate instead on the capacity of the accused.
There’s some difference with the common law position (Yeah earlier referred to McNaughten’s case). The incapacities to which the statutory defence refers include the capacity to control actions where as the McN rules speak only of such a defect of reason “as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or that what he was doing was wrong”. Maybe these equate to the same thing, but this hopefully helps clarify the exact nature of the defence to a jury.
A note of the consequence of a successful defence of insanity: if the accused is acquitted on the basis of an unsound mind, the court is required to order him to be kept in strict custody in such place and in such manner as the court thinks fit, until Her Majesty’s pleasure is known.
Simply put, a person not-guity-by-plea-of-insanity is confined to a loony-bin until the Government of the day decides they should be released. So it’s not exactly a grrreat defence to pull.
The Model Penal Code test is whether a mendtal disease or defect caused the defendant to lack substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. This contrasts with the traditional M’Naghten test, which requires a total impairment of the capacity to appreciate right and wrong.
The federal statute (applicable to federal crimes), 18 U.S.C. sec. 17:
This apparently requires a total impairment, much like M’Naghton. The federal standard requires the defendant to prove the defense by clear and convincing evidence. The Texas defense is actually easier in that the defendant only has to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.
As for the application . . . that’s up to the jury. They get an instruction on the standard, and it’s up to them to apply it.
Protesilaus, I hope you won’t consider this a hijack, but this thread has begged one general and one specific hypothetical question from me.
The general question is: What exactly constitutes a mental disease or defect under the law? We’ve been discussing the necessary effect that a disease/defect needs to have on a person to qualify as legal insanity, but what qualifies as a legitimate cause? Is the answer simply that a disease/defect is whatever a jury says it is, even (such as in one notorious case) a Twinkie?
Now here’s the hypothetical: Let’s say that I’ve been raised in a backwoods isolated area by deviant parents. My parents never taught me that murder was both illegal and immoral. In fact they taught the opposite, that it was perfectly acceptable to kill in cold blood whenever one felt like it. I was home-schooled and never had any contact with any other people. My family was too poor to afford telecommunications or news media of any sort (no TV, no Internet, not even a radio or a newspaper). Long story short, I never had any opportunity to learn about civilized society’s take on murder from any source. Beyond that, I’m perfectly healthy physically and as mentally healthy as one can be with such an upbringing. Aside from egregiously misinforming me about the right and wrong of murder (not to mention keeping me sequestered from the world) my parents did not abuse or mistreat me. I’m sure you’ve already predicted the end of this: one day I run away from home packing my daddy’s .22 and kill someone. Is ignorance of the law, in this case, an excuse?
** STRUCT ** your hypothetical person does not have a “mental disease or defect” : he is not insane. His defense is that he was ignorant of the law, but ignorance of the law is generally not a defense.
As others have pointed out here and elsewhere, there are a number of difficulties with the insanity affirmative defense (affirmative defense means that the defendant has to raise the question and prove the factual basis for the defense by what ever degree of certainty as might be required, e.g., preponderance of the credible evidence, clear and convincing evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, or whatever):
First, the actual elements of the defense are different in the different States and in the Federal system. We were close to a uniform definition until Mr. Hinckley took in upon himself to shoot President Regan. With that a fair number of State legislatures took it upon themselves to establish new rules that were unabashedly intended to make sure that the defense was very difficult to establish and only those who were no more sensible than a wild beast were going to be able to pull off the defense.
Second, we are attempting to reconcile what is essentially a 18th Century idea of criminal responsibility with 21st Century medicine. The legal concept is not only pre-Freud, it predates germ theory (note that the existence of germs is ONLY a theory). When the insanity defense reached maturity supposedly enlightened people were treating insane people as demon possessed and locking them up in places like Bedlam.
Third, the ultimate decision is made by a small group specifically selected for their ignorance and lack of any firm opinion on any aspect of psychiatry. People tend to distrust things they don’t understand. This means a jury will be highly skeptical of psychiatric evidence and inclined to reject it out of hand.
Fourth, juries are very rarely told of the consequences of their verdict. In some States a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity means that the defendant is committed to a state hospital until hospital authorities conclude that the defendant is absolutely, beyond any doubt at all free of mental illness and offers no threat of any sort to anyone. This can amount to being sent to an insane asylum for the rest of the defendant’s life. Juries, because they are kept ignorant, usually think that a finding that the defendant is insane and therefore not responsible means that the defendant goes free, as would be the case in an acquittal on the merits. For that reason a jury is all the more reluctant to accept the defense, especially if the bad thing the defendant has done is horrible, like drowning children.
In short, a defendant who asserts the insanity defense is playing cards against the house and with a short deck. Since criminal defendants with serious mental health problems are not an important voting block, don’t expect things to change anytime soon.
Is that legal fact or your opinion? If I were defending my hypothetical person, would I or wouldn’t I be allowed to argue in court that “the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts”? I realize the “disease” part of the definition wouldn’t fly, but what about “defect”? From dictionary.com:
Seems to me that my hypothetical scenario fits that to a tee.
It’s the law: ignorance of the law is no excuse. That’s not my opinion. You’re trying to raise the insanity defense when your hypothetical is not insane and has no mental problem. You can isolate the word “defect” and find a dictionary definition that comports with your idea, but that is not how the word is used in defining insanity. Moreover, that’s just the federal standard and that definition is not necessarily used by a state.
I’m aware of the “ignorance of the law is no excuse” platitude, but I’m asking if my hypothetical scenario would fly in court. I didn’t “isolate” the word defect, I provided a textbook definition to illustrate my point that my scenario could conceivably meet the federal insanity standard. I’m raising the question of whether or not a person completely ignorant of the right and wrong of murder can legally be considered sane under the law. Now then, do you have a cite to back up your point, barbitu8, or are you just making a blanket pronouncement based on your interpretation of the facts?
struct-
It would not fly in court, because every “insanity” test requires that the cause be a “mental disease or defect.” Not being taught something is not considered a defect. It’s just ignorance. And don’t get huffy. barbitu8 is stating the law as it is. The particular definition you refer to is not the one used in the law. I cannot provide you a cite, because the law doesn’t work that way. There is no place (to my knowledge) where the court has said, “‘defect’ means this, but not that.” Mostly because they don’t have to. In the law, we call that “common sense.” Just because one definition says one thing out of context does not mean a jury (or judge) is forced to dsee it that way. Contrary to common belief, common sense definitions do occasionally crop up in the law.
And yes, the insanity standard in most states is “harsh,” if by harsh you mean, it keeps people who might be insane out of jail (and in a mental institution). However, keep in mind two facts:
-
The first standard is old, when people were much more interested in justice for the victim than they were for the defendant. Rightly so, IMHO (but then again, we’ve already established that I was a prosecutor).
-
The point is to make it difficult to acheive the standard. Sanity is inherently difficult to prove or disprove. After all, most murders are committed by people who aren’t completely ther in the first place.
THANK YOU, Redhawke, for the non-condescending, well-reasoned, factual, no huffiness called for answer that I was looking for. I don’t mind being in error, but I resent any implication that I’m intellectually deficient. Your good 411 is much appreciated, and any time I can return the favor by providing good intel on all things technology-related, please post and I shall reply.
I never implied that you were dumb, nor did I answer in any condescending manner. I gave you the law. It’s you that took exception to my statement and questioned whether I was stating the law or giving my opinion. The factual situation you gave was provocative and interesting, but I merely stated that being dumb is not the same as crazy and ignorance of the law is not a defense.
barbitu8, I suspect that struct took offense at your sentence, “You’re trying to raise the insanity defense when your hypothetical is not insane and has no mental problem,” reading it as directed to him as opposed to his hypothetical lawyer.
Took me a second read to see what you were getting at.
Struct, have I got it right?
Everybody friends?
It’s all good, baby. 
Thanks to everybody for answering.