NONFICTION ARTICLES 1 – Insanity Defense

NONFICTION ARTICLES 1 – Insanity Defense
Directions: Read the following article. Use your active reading strategies. Annotate
by coding the text and making comments to explain your coding or thoughts in the
space provided (with a colored pen).
LEGAL DICTIONARY
Annotate and
comment about
the text in this
The insanity defense is a defense asserted by an accused in a criminal prosecution to avoid liability for the
commission of a crime because, at the time of the crime, the person did not appreciate the nature or quality or space below:
Insanity Defense – Passage 1
wrongfulness of the acts.
The insanity defense is used by criminal defendants. The most common variation is cognitive insanity. Under the
test for cognitive insanity, a defendant must have been so impaired by a mental disease or defect at the time of
the act that he or she did not know the nature or quality of the act, or, if the defendant did know the nature or
quality of the act, he or she did not know that the act was wrong. The vast majority of states allow criminal
defendants to invoke the cognitive insanity defense.
Another form of the insanity defense is volitional insanity, or Irresistible Impulse. A defense of irresistible impulse
asserts that the defendant, although able to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the act, suffered from a
mental disease or defect that made him or her incapable of controlling her or his actions. This defense is common
in crimes of vengeance. For example, suppose that a child has been brutally assaulted. If an otherwise
conscientious and law-abiding mother shoots the perpetrator, the mother may argue that she was so enraged that
she became mentally ill and incapable of exerting self-control. Very few states allow the volitional insanity defense.
The insanity defense should not be confused with Incompetency. Persons who are incompetent to stand trial are
held in a mental institution until they are considered capable of participating in the proceedings.
The insanity defense reflects the generally accepted notion that persons who cannot appreciate the consequences
of their actions should not be punished for criminal acts. Most states regulate the defense with statutes, but a few
states allow the courts to craft the rules for its proper use. Generally, the defense is available to a criminal
defendant if the judge instructs the jury that it may consider whether the defendant was insane when the crime
was committed. The judge may issue this instruction if the defendant has produced sufficient evidence at trial to
justify the theory. Sufficient evidence invariably includes Expert Testimony by psychologists and psychiatrists.
When invoking insanity as a defense, a defendant is required to notify the prosecution. In some states, sanity is
determined by the judge or jury in a separate proceeding following the determination of guilt or innocence at trial.
In other states, the defense is either accepted or rejected in the verdict of the judge or jury. Even if evidence of
insanity does not win a verdict of not guilty, the sentencing court may consider it as a mitigating factor.
History
"Complete madness" was first established as a defense to criminal charges by the common-law courts in latethirteenth-century England. By the eighteenth century, the complete madness definition had evolved into the "wild
beast" test. Under that test, the insanity defense was available to a person who was "totally deprived of his
understanding and memory so as not to know what he [was] doing, no more than an infant, a brute, or a wild
beast" (Feigl 1995, 161).
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Insanity+Defense
WORLD BOOK
Insanity Defense – Passage 2
Insanity is a legal term for any mental disease or defect severe enough to prevent someone from being legally
responsible for his or her actions. Under many systems of criminal law, someone found to be insane cannot be
guilty of a crime. Thus, insanity is used as a defense in some criminal cases. However, a defendant found not guilty
by reason of insanity may still be considered dangerous. Such a defendant could not be imprisoned but could be
hospitalized until he or she was no longer mentally ill.
The insanity defense focuses on the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime. This is different from
incompetency to stand trial. Incompetency focuses on the defendant’s state of mind at the time of trial. A defense
of diminished capacity permits a defendant to introduce evidence showing that he or she lacked the mental state of
intention necessary to be convicted of a crime.
In early English history, people who were thought to be insane were not prosecuted for criminal behavior. Instead,
they were committed to asylums. Eventually, a standard was required to determine when someone was or was not
insane to determine whether to prosecute. The landmark case in the modern development of the insanity defense
is M'Naghten's Case. This case was decided in the United Kingdom in 1843. Daniel M'Naghten had been charged
with murder. The court judged him not guilty by reason of insanity. Doctors who examined M'Naghten found that
he was prevented from being responsible for his actions by a mental illness. The case led to a new standard for the
insanity defense called the M'Naghten Rule. This rule recognized a defendant as insane if, at the time the
defendant committed the act, he or she met certain conditions. The conditions were that the defendant either did
not know the nature and quality of the act or did not know what he or she was doing was wrong. British law and a
large number of U.S. states still use some form of the M'Naghten Rule. More legal tests have been added for the
insanity defense since M'Naghten.
If a defendant is acquitted because of insanity, the court gives a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. All
states have procedures for committing a defendant to a psychiatric institution following such a verdict. Some states
also allow a defendant to be found guilty but mentally ill. This verdict allows for conviction, but it also requires
treatment as part of the sentence.
Contributor:
• Steven R. Probst, J.D., M.L.I.S., Educational Services Librarian, Valparaiso University School of Law.