COMMITMENT

• 1. CIVIL COMMITMENT – COMMITTMENT BECAUSE OF MENTAL ILLNESS ITSELF

• 2. CRIMINAL COMMITMENT – COMMITMENT BECAUSE NGRI (NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY)

INSANITY DEFENSE

• RARELY USED (< 1%)

• IF USED, ALMOST ALWAYS FOR MURDER

• IF USED, RARELY SUCCESSFUL

• HIGHLY SYMBOLIC AND CONTROVERSIAL

CRIMINAL VS. SICK

• PEOPLE SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMES THEY COMMIT

• NGRI SEEMS TO VIOLATE THIS VALUE – OFFENDS SENSE OF JUSTICE

• PEOPLE WHO ARE SICK ARE NOT BLAMEWORTHY

• CONTRADICTION

NOT GUILTY TO WHAT?

• A CRIME

• CRIME HAS TWO ELEMENTS

• ACTUS REA – GUILTY ACT

• MENS REA – GUILTY MIND

• CRIME REQUIRES BOTH

• NGRI DENIES MENS REA

TWO PLACES

• DEFENSE AT THE TIME THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED

• AT TIME OF TRIAL – INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL – NOT OF CONCERN HERE

M’NAGHTEN CASE (UK 1843)

• “THAT EVERY MAN IS PRESUMED TO BE SANE, AND THAT TO ESTABLISH A DEFENSE ON THE GROUND OF INSANITY IT MUST BE PROVEN THAT AT THE TIME OF COMMITTING THE ACT, THE PARTY ACCUSED WAS LABORING UNDER SUCH A DEFECT OF REASON, FROM DISEASE OF THE

M’NAGHTEN (CONT.)

• 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 HE WAS DOING WHAT WAS WRONG.”

M’NAGHTEN

• 1. DEFECT OF REASON (NOT IMPULSE OR EMOTION)

• 2. FROM DISEASE OF MIND (CAUSAL)

• 3. NOT KNOW NATURE AND QUALITY OF ACT

• 4. OR, DID NOT KNOW HE WAS DOING WHAT WAS WRONG

CRITICISMS OF M’NAGHTEN

• NARROWNESS

• COGNITIVE EMPHASIS

• LEGAL, NOT PSYCHIATRIC, GROUNDING

DURHAM RULE (US 1954)

• “AN ACCUSED IS NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE IF HIS UNLAWFUL ACT WAS THE PRODUCT OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT.”

• REACTION TO PERCEIVED NARROWNESS OF M’NAGHTEN

CRITICISMS OF DURHAM

• 1. EXTREMELY BROAD (E.G. ASPD)

• 2. NO DEFINITION OF MENTAL ILLNESS

• 3. CAN UNDERMINE FOUNDATION OF CRIMINAL LAW

AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE (US 1972)

• “A PERSON IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMINAL CONDUCT IF, AT THE TIME OF SUCH CONDUCT, AS A RESULT OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, HE LACKS SUBSTANTIAL CAPACITY EITHER TO APPRECIATE THE CRIMINALITY OF HIS CONDUCT OR TO CONFORM HIS CONDUCT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW.”

ALI

• NARROWS DURHAM – LACKS APPRECIATION OR ABILITY TO CONTROL CONDUCT

• BROADENS M’N – APPRECIATE RATHER THAN KNOW; ABILITY TO CONTROL

ANDREA YATES (TEXAS 2002)

• 36 YR. OLD WOMAN DROWNED FIVE CHILDREN (6 MONTHS – 7 YEARS) IN BATHTUB THEN CALLED POLICE

• HAD ATTEMPTED SUICIDE AFTER BIRTH OF 4TH CHILD AND ON MEDS; 4 HOSPITALIZATIONS

• VERY SERIOUS DEPRESSED AFTER 5TH CHILD BUT MEDS. STOPPED

YATES

• STATE SOUGHT DEATH PENALTY, YATES PLED NGRI

• DEFENSE: HAD VISIONS AND HEARD VOICES TELLING HER TO KILL

• PROSECUTION SAID KNEW COMMITTING CRIME AND KNEW IT WAS WRONG

YATES

• CONVICTED BUT GIVEN LIFE SENTENCE NOT DEATH

• UNDER M’NAGHTEN CLEARLY WAS GUILTY – KNEW DROWNING CHILDREN AND KNEW WAS WRONG

• IF DURHAM CLEARLY NGRI• IF ALI HARD TO SAY – “INCAPABLE OF

CONFORMING CONDUCT TO LAW”

MAJOR PROBLEM WITH ALL

• WHAT HAPPENS WHEN NGRI NO LONGER MENTALLY ILL?

• DO NGRI GET OFF TOO EASILY?• E.G. TEMPORARY M.I. AND SEVERE

CRIME• OR ARE THEY WORSE OFF?

(MCMURPHY)• SEVERE M.I. BUT MINOR CRIME

TORSNEY V. STATE OF N.Y.

• TORSNEY NYC COP WHO SHOT UNARMED 15 YR. OLD FOR NO REASON

• FOUND NGRI

• HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRISTS SAID NOT M.I.

• COURT SAID HAD TO RELEASE

JONES V. U.S.

• JONES ARRESTED FOR PETTY THEFT (MISDEMEANOR W/MAX. 1 YEAR)

• OBVIOUSLY PSYCHOTIC AND PLED NGRI AND COMMITTED TO M.H.

• AT HEARING AFTER 1 YEAR STILL CONSIDERED M.I.

• COURT SAID STAY IN HOSPITAL

RESULT OF NGRI

• SOMETIMES TOO LENIENT – TORSNEY

• SOMETIMES TOO HARSH – JONES

• OVERALL, ABOUT SAME LENGTH OF TIME

MORE M.I. NOW IN CJS

• MANY M.I. NOW FOUND IN JAILS AND PRISONS (10% - 15%)

• RATE HIGHER THAN GENERAL POP.

• RESULT OF DI?

• HARD TO TELL

THREE GROUPS

• 1. MINOR OFFENDERS – LOITERING, DISTURBING PEACE, SHOPLIFTERS

• MAJORITY OF M.I. IN CJS

• 2. VIOLENT SUBSTANCE ABUSERS

• 3. PSYCHOTIC MENTALLY ILL

• WHEN OFF MEDS AND HAVE PSYCHOTIC EPISODE

MAJOR PROBLEMS

• LACK OF DIVERSION PROGRAMS FROM CJS

• LACK OF MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT IN CJS

• UNWILLINGNESS OF MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS TO TREAT OFFENDERS