Insane Circumstances

Catch-22 (logic)

---

Their testimony guides the jury, but they are not allowed to testify to the accused's criminal responsibility, as this is a matter for the jury to decide. Similarly, mental health practitioners are restrained from making a judgment on the issue of whether the defendant is or is not insane or what is known as the "ultimate issue". Some jurisdictions require the evaluation to address the defendant's ability to control their behavior at the time of the offense the volitional limb.

A defendant claiming the defense is pleading " not guilty by reason of insanity " NGRI or " guilty but insane or mentally ill " in some jurisdictions which, if successful, may result in the defendant being committed to a psychiatric facility for an indeterminate period. Dretke have been clear in their decisions that jury instructions in death penalty cases that do not ask about mitigating factors regarding the defendant's mental health violate the defendant's Eighth Amendment rights, saying that the jury is to be instructed to consider mitigating factors when answering unrelated questions.

This ruling suggests specific explanations to the jury are necessary to weigh mitigating factors. Diminished responsibility or diminished capacity can be employed as a mitigating factor or partial defense to crimes and, in the United States, is applicable to more circumstances than the insanity defense. The Homicide Act is the statutory basis for the defense of diminished responsibility in England and Wales, whereas in Scotland it is a product of case law.

The number of findings of diminished responsibility has been matched by a fall in unfitness to plead and insanity findings Walker, A plea of diminished capacity is different from a plea of insanity in that "reason of insanity" is a full defense while "diminished capacity" is merely a plea to a lesser crime. Non compos mentis Latin is a legal term meaning "not of sound mind".

See a Problem?

It is the direct opposite of Compos mentis of a sound mind. Although typically used in law, this term can also be used metaphorically or figuratively; e. The term may be applied when a determination of competency needs to be made by a physician for purposes of obtaining informed consent for treatments and, if necessary, assigning a surrogate to make health care decisions.

While the proper sphere for this determination is in a court of law, this is practically, and most frequently, made by physicians in the clinical setting. In English law, the rule of non compos mentis was most commonly used when the defendant invoked religious or magical explanations for behaviour. Several cases have ruled that persons found not guilty by reason of insanity may not withdraw the defense in a habeas petition to pursue an alternative, although there have been exceptions in other rulings.

He was granted a new trial and found guilty of the original charges, receiving a prison sentence of 40 years.

Navigation menu

In the landmark case of Frendak v. United States in , the court ruled that the insanity defense cannot be imposed upon an unwilling defendant if an intelligent defendant voluntarily wishes to forgo the defense. Those found to have been not guilty by reason of mental disorder or insanity are generally then required to undergo psychiatric treatment in a mental institution [ citation needed ] , except in the case of temporary insanity see below. Authorities making this decision tend to be cautious, and as a result, defendants can often be institutionalized for longer than they would have been incarcerated in prison.

Louisiana the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a person could not be held "indefinitely". So far, in the United States, those acquitted of a federal offense by reason of insanity have not been able to challenge their psychiatric confinement through a writ of habeas corpus or other remedies. Hedrick , F. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit the court ruled persons found not guilty by reason of insanity and later want to challenge their confinement may not attack their initial successful insanity defense:.

It also held that the collateral attack that he was not informed that a possible alternative to his commitment was to ask for a new trial was not a meaningful alternative. An important distinction to be made is the difference between competency and criminal responsibility. Competency largely deals with the defendant's present condition, while criminal responsibility addresses the condition at the time the crime was committed. In the United States, a trial in which the insanity defense is invoked typically involves the testimony of psychiatrists or psychologists who will, as expert witnesses , present opinions on the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offense.

Therefore, a person whose mental disorder is not in dispute is determined to be sane if the court decides that despite a "mental illness" the defendant was responsible for the acts committed and will be treated in court as a normal defendant. If the person has a mental illness and it is determined that the mental illness interfered with the person's ability to determine right from wrong and other associated criteria a jurisdiction may have and if the person is willing to plead guilty or is proven guilty in a court of law, some jurisdictions have an alternative option known as either a Guilty but Mentally Ill GBMI or a Guilty but Insane verdict.

The GBMI verdict is available as an alternative to, rather than in lieu of, a "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict. The notion of temporary insanity argues that a defendant was insane during the commission of a crime, but they later regained their sanity after the criminal act was carried out. This legal defense is commonly used to defend individuals that have committed crimes of passion. The defense was first successfully used by U. The concept of defense by insanity has existed since ancient Greece and Rome. The first complete transcript of an insanity trial dates to It is likely that the insane, like those under 14, were spared trial by ordeal.

When trial by jury replaced this, the jury members were expected to find the insane guilty but then refer the case to the King for a Royal Pardon. From onwards, juries could acquit the insane, and detention required a separate civil procedure Walker, The Criminal Lunatics Act , passed with retrospective effect following the acquittal of James Hadfield , mandated detention at the regent's pleasure indefinitely even for those who, although insane at the time of the offence, were now sane. The M'Naghten Rules of were not a codification or definition of insanity but rather the responses of a panel of judges to hypothetical questions posed by Parliament in the wake of Daniel M'Naghten 's acquittal for the homicide of Edward Drummond, whom he mistook for British Prime Minister Robert Peel.

The rules define the defense as "at the time of committing the act the party accused was labouring 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 as not to know that what he was doing was wrong. It further stated that a person under the death penalty is entitled to a competency evaluation and to an evidentiary hearing in court on the question of his competency to be executed. Greenfield , the Court ruled that it was fundamentally unfair for the prosecutor to comment during the court proceedings on the petitioner's silence invoked as a result of a Miranda warning.

The prosecutor had argued that the respondent's silence after receiving Miranda warnings was evidence of his sanity. In the United States, variances in the insanity defense between states, and in the federal court system, are attributable to differences with respect to three key issues:. In the United States, a criminal defendant may plead insanity in federal court, and in the state courts of every state except for Idaho, Kansas, Montana, and Utah. Each state and the federal court system currently uses one of the following "tests" to define insanity for purposes of the insanity defense.

Over its decades of use the definition of insanity has been modified by statute, with changes to the availability of the insanity defense, what constitutes legal insanity whether the prosecutor or defendant has the burden of proof, the standard of proof required at trial, trial procedures, and to commitment and release procedures for defendants who have been acquitted based on a finding of insanity. The guidelines for the M'Naghten Rules , state, inter alia , and evaluating the criminal responsibility for defendants claiming to be insane were settled in the British courts in the case of Daniel M'Naghten in M'Naghten apparently believed that the prime minister was the architect of the myriad of personal and financial misfortunes that had befallen him.

The House of Lords asked the judges of the common law courts to answer five questions on insanity as a criminal defence, [33] [34] and the formulation that emerged from their review—that a defendant should not be held responsible for his actions only if, as a result of his mental disease or defect, he i did not know that his act would be wrong; or ii did not understand the nature and quality of his actions—became the basis of the law governing legal responsibility in cases of insanity in England. Under the rules, loss of control because of mental illness was no defense [ citation needed ].

The M'Naghten rule was embraced with almost no modification by American courts and legislatures for more than years, until the midth century. The strict M'Naghten standard for the insanity defense was widely used until the s and the case of Durham v. The test, also called the Product Test, is broader than either the M'Naghten test or the irresistible impulse test.

The test has more lenient guidelines for the insanity defense, but it addressed the issue of convicting mentally ill defendants, which was allowed under the M'Naghten Rule. The Model Penal Code , published by the American Law Institute, provides a standard for legal insanity that serves as a compromise between the strict M'Naghten Rule, the lenient Durham ruling, and the irresistible impulse test. Under the MPC standard, which represents the modern trend, a defendant 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 the law.

After the perpetrator of President Reagan's assassination attempt was found not guilty by reason of insanity, Congress passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act of Under this act, the burden of proof was shifted from the prosecution to the defense and the standard of evidence in federal trials was increased from a preponderance of evidence to clear and convincing evidence. Under this new test only perpetrators suffering from severe mental illnesses at the time of the crime could successfully employ the insanity defense.

The defendant's ability to control himself or herself was no longer a consideration. The Act also curbed the scope of expert psychiatric testimony and adopted stricter procedures regarding the hospitalization and release of those found not guilty by reason of insanity.

As an alternative to the insanity defense, some jurisdictions permit a defendant to plead guilty but mentally ill. In a majority of states, the burden of proving insanity is placed on the defendant, who must prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.

In a minority of states, the burden is placed on the prosecution, who must prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. In federal court, and in Arizona, the burden is placed on the defendant, who must prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence. The insanity plea is used in the U.

It should be noted, however, that there is no definitive study regarding the percentage of people with mental illness who come into contact with police, appear as criminal defendants, are incarcerated, or are under community supervision. Furthermore, the scope of this issue varies across jurisdictions.

Accordingly, advocates should rely as much as possible on statistics collected by local and state government agencies.

Insane Circumstances

In , the Nevada Supreme Court found that their state's abolition of the defense was unconstitutional as a violation of Federal due process. In , the Supreme Court decided Clark v. Arizona upheld Arizona's limitations on the insanity defense. In that same ruling, the Court noted "We have never held that the Constitution mandates an insanity defense, nor have we held that the Constitution does not so require.

In other words, psychologists provide testimony and professional opinion but are not ultimately responsible for answering legal questions. In Australia there are nine law units. All may have varying rules see [1]. A person is mentally incompetent to commit an offence if, at the time of the conduct alleged to give rise to the offence, the person is suffering from a mental impairment and, in consequence of the mental impairment—.

A person is mentally unfit to stand trial on a charge of an offence if the person's mental processes are so disordered or impaired that the person is—.

In Victoria the current defence of mental impairment was introduced in the Crimes Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried Act which replaced the common law defence of insanity and indefinite detention at the governor's pleasure with the following:. These requirements are almost identical to the M'Naghten Rules, substituting "mental impairment" for "disease of the mind". Whether a particular condition amounts to a disease of the mind is not a medical but a legal question to be decided in accordance with the ordinary rules of interpretation.

However, the prosecution can raise it in exceptional circumstances: R v Ayoub Australian cases have further qualified and explained the M'Naghten Rules. The NSW Supreme Court has held there are two limbs to the M'Naghten Rules , that the accused did not know what he was doing, or that the accused did not appreciate that what he was doing was morally wrong, in both cases the accused must be operating under a 'defect of reason, from a disease of the mind'.

The defence of mental disorder is codified in section 16 of the Criminal Code which states, in part:. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Oct 18, Arlena rated it really liked it Shelves: Rescued by love in the form of a taxi driver who turns out to be anything but ordinary, the young woman does manage to su Title: This was definitely one of those reads that had a little bit of it all to describe this well written story of "Insane Circumstances" from fear, anger, powerful, frustration, ashamed, moving, explosive, to disturbing.

Imagine going to college and finding it hard to find friends and all because of your skin color. I loved how this author was able to give the reader a well plotted storyline.

The novel is definitely one of those reads that once you start the read you will find it hard to put down until the end. I found this read horrible in what this heroine had to go through but I found her quite a fighter who was not a easy one to give up. Be ready for some emotions that will lead to laugh and yes even cry.

The characters were all for the most part well developed, well portrayed, real and very believable giving the reader a good historical and entertaining events that will never be forgotten in the south. What I especially liked about this novel I like this way this author brings this read out to the reader I will stop her and say to get it all you must pick up this good read to read for yourself how well this is brought out and presented to the reader.

Would I recommend "Insane Circumstances? Jul 02, Melanie Adkins rated it it was amazing. Brandi got a scholarship to attend college but the college is further north. Her family is concerned about her being so far from home, but Brandi is ready. At least she thinks she is.

From the moment she steps off the bus at Claxville, Brandi encounters situations she might never have experienced. Working hard to keep her grades up and make everyone proud of her, Brandi is living through circumstances no one should have to live through. Finding friends is difficult because of her skin color, Br Brandi got a scholarship to attend college but the college is further north.

Finding friends is difficult because of her skin color, Brandi doesn't give up though. She soon learns how to be herself and deal with the white girls who make her life so miserable at every turn. Brandi learns lessons she then shares with someone going through very similar things. Explosive, powerful, moving and disturbing are all great ways to describe Insane Circumstances by Brenda Smith. The writing is solid, characters well defined and the lesson is one society still needs to learn. I found this book to be eye-opening in many ways.

As a human being, I was ashamed and disturbed by some of what is contained in this book. To think someone lived through this nightmare is heartbreaking. You'll love the spirit of Brandi Leigh Brown though!

• The Adventures of Ajalon and Kayla: The Emerald Globe
• Summary: The Opportunity: Review and Analysis of Richard N. Haass
• Lernen im Schlaf. Schnell, einfach und effektiv. Sprachen lernen wie ein Profi. Fremdsprachen lernen ohne Akzent. Texte und Vokabeln lernen ohne büffeln. (German Edition)
• Voci dal lager: Diari e lettere di deportati politici 1943-1945 (Einaudi tascabili. Saggi Vol. 1691) (Italian Edition)
• Camping around South Australia (Explore Australia)