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