Here are two case examples to help you apply the information we just went over. John is diagnosed with schizophrenia. During a psychotic episode, he murders his roommate because he believes that his roommate is a demon that has been sent to kill him. John is arrested, charged with murder, and he pleads Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.
While he is in the county jail, he starts to take his medications and his psychotic symptoms are managed. By the time he goes to court for his first hearing, there are no symptoms of psychosis. He is competent to stand trial because there are no overt symptoms of psychosis and he has a rational and factual understanding of the criminal proceedings.
Bill is diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, with psychotic features. He is compliant with his medications and his symptoms are well managed. Bill breaks into a house and burglarizes it.
A neighbor sees the crime in progress, calls the police, and Bill is arrested. He is booked into the county jail and is awaiting his arraignment. While in the county jail, Bill stops taking his medications and starts to present with manic symptoms. By the time his arraignment hearing comes, Bill is in a manic episode. Due to his symptoms, the judge requests a competency evaluation. The judge orders Bill to a competency restoration program at a state hospital. If you do have a valid claim to make about your mental state when you committed the crime, you will be at the mercy of the psychiatric institution to determine when and if you can make your case.
If you are found competent and you cannot make the case of insanity, then you are essentially delaying the inevitable. On the other hand, being declared incompetent may be a part of your strategy for supporting insanity claims.
When considering strategies that involve mental capacity and crime working with an experienced California criminal defense attorney is a must.
Call David M. Boertje, a San Diego criminal defense lawyer for a free consultation at for his San Diego office or for his Carlsbad location. San Diego Criminal Lawyers Blog. However, the case caused a public uproar, and Queen Victoria ordered the court to develop a stricter test for insanity. The " M'Naghten rule" was a standard to be applied by the jury, after hearing medical testimony from prosecution and defense experts.
The rule created a presumption of sanity unless the defense proved "at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.
This analysis focuses on an actor's cognition. The test is bifurcated into two components, each of which is individually sufficient to substantiate an insanity defense.
First, a defendant is deemed insane if they were incapable of knowing what they were doing at the time committing the object offense. This conclusion comports with criminal law's fundamental conception of culpability.
A defendant is not culpable for an act that, because of a psychological infirmity, he or she did not know he or she was committing. The second component of the test looks to determine if the defendant knew that his or her actions were wrong.
Here, even if the defendant knew what he or she was doing, he or she is deemed insane where he or she was incapable of recognizing the wrongfulness of the action committed.
A paradigmatic example of this analysis involves deific decrees. In these cases, the defendant is often found insane on the grounds that, because "God" commanded the defendant to act, he or she was unable to recognize the wrongfulness of the act that was carried out. Various legal commentaries have identified theoretical issues within the M'Naghten framework. 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. Lawyers and the courts rely on the expertise of forensic psychologists to understand these concepts and make professional determinations based upon their legal definitions. Competency determines whether a defendant will be able to appear at trial and understand the proceedings.
More specifically, the Supreme Court found that to be competent a defendant must:. The definition of insanity varies from one state to the next, and some states have no insanity defense at all.
The insanity defense is based on the assumption that the defendant was not of sound mind when the crime was committed and is therefore incapable of appreciating the true nature of the crime.
Defendants who are found competent to stand trial may still be found not guilty by reason of insanity, although defendants found not competent to stand trial can never be found guilty or not guilty because a trial cannot happen in the first place. A judge determines competency; a jury determines insanity. Therefore, competency is determined before a trial commences, while insanity is determined at the end of trial with the verdict.
An attorney can raise competency as an issue, or a judge may base a finding of competency based on observation.
0コメント