Popular in Forensic Psychology
Popular in Psychlogy
This 5 page Class Notes was uploaded by Amy Turk on Wednesday April 13, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PSYCH-30111 at Kent State University taught by Dr. Anthony Tarescavage in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 4 views. For similar materials see Forensic Psychology in Psychlogy at Kent State University.
Reviews for Insanity
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 04/13/16
INSANITY ● Mental illness must be present ● Criminal cases ● Not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) = legal plea ○ Requires that the defendant admits to the crime ● A legal compromise to one of society’s moral dilemmas ○ Society believes criminals should be punished ○ Society also believes it’s inappropriate to punish someone who does not know what they’re doing and/or can’t control their behavior ● The first standard was the Wild Beast test (1724) M’Naghten’s Standards ● Must meet both… ○ Severe mental disease or defect ○ Either did not know the nature and quality of act or did not know it was wrong ● Severe mental disease ○ Psychotic disorders ○ Bipolar disorders ● Severe mental defect ○ Dementia ○ Traumatic brain injury ○ Intellectual disability ● Criticized for being too conservative ● Used in 26 states, including Ohio ● Most commonly used standard Durham (AKA Product Rule) Standards ● The crime must be the offspring or product of mental disease ● Two requirements ○ Presence of a mental disease ○ The crime was the product of disease ● Application to cases is complicated ● Only New Hampshire ● Designed to be simple and give experts as much flexibility as possible ○ This leads to disagreements on how to apply the standard ○ Also increases the chances of experts providing ultimate issue testimony American Law Institute (ALI) Rule ● The ALI = group of lawyers who draft proposed laws and suggest legal reforms but do not have any legal authority to make these changes ○ In 1962, they sought to reform insanity law given the criticisms of Durham product rule ● According to ALI, a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time he was suffering a mental disease or defect… lacks the capacity to either appreciate the wrongfulness or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law ● Expands the M’Naghten standard (which focuses only on KNOWING) by allowing the role of emotion to substantially diminish one’s appreciation of wrongfulness ● Similar to M’Naghten but more liberal ● Still a more conservative standard than the product rule ● All federal courts and many state courts use this standard Insanity Reform Act ● 1984 ● The assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan led to a reform when John Hinkley was acquitted as NGRI ○ Shifted burden of proof to defendant for federal cases ○ Subsequently some states shifted the burden of proof Guilty but Mentally Ill ● 20 states have an additional verdict ● GBMI ● Most of the states added the verdict shortly after the Hinkley assassination attempt ● This does not replace a plea of NGRI… it is just one more possible verdict ● In order to be found GBMI… ○ Be guilty of the offense ○ Be mentally ill at the time of offense ○ Not be mentally insane at the time of offense ● A middle ground ● The person should receive treatment before beginning their sentence in prison (or in prison) ● Has been criticized because it allows juries and judges to avoid confronting the issue of insanity ● In some states the supervision of GBMI is stricter than a traditional guilty verdict ● Not all states have an insanity plea ● Montana abolished the insanity defense in 1979, Idaho in 1982, Utah in 1983, and Kansas in 1996 ● It’s not clear if this has had a positive or negative effect on the criminal justice system in these areas ● These states may find alternative means to deal with cases that would meet NGRI standards in other states Do standards actually effect acquittal rates? ● Probably not ● Jurors fall back on their own misconceptions of what insanity means, despite the jury instructions ○ Insanity standards are complicated ● When this plea is available, there are less NGRI verdicts AND less guilty verdicts Public Beliefs vs Facts ● Public tends to grossly over-estimate how frequently the defense is successfully used and under-estimate the consequences of those found NGRI ● How often is the insanity defense used? ○ Public belief = 37% of cases ○ Fact = 1% ● How often are those using the defense acquitted? ○ PB = 44% ○ Fact = 26% ● What percentage of insanity cases are freed? ○ PB = 26% ○ Fact = 15% ■ 12% have conditional release ■ 3% ordered to do outpatient treatment ■ 1% are released “scot-free” ■ The other 85% are sent to mental hospitals indefinitely ● How long are insanity acquittals confined? ○ PB = 22 months ○ Fact = 33 months ■ 76 months for murder Other Common Misconceptions ● Most insanity acquittals are charged with murder ● Insanity acquittals end up getting away with their crime without serving enough time ○ On average they’re institutionalized for as long or longer than if they had been convicted of crime ● Insanity acquittals are especially dangerous after they are released ○ Re-offending rates are very similar to people leaving prisons Evaluations of Insanity ● NGRI evaluations are one of the most difficult assessments in forensic psychology ○ Legal standards vary across states and are often unclear ○ Have to determine insanity at the time of the offense, which may have been several months or even years beforehand ■ Need to rely more on third-party info ○ No universally accepted interviews or psychological tests ● Typically include interviews, psychological testing, and a review of records ● Borum & Grisso (1996) survey identified central elements of these evaluations ○ Psychiatric history ○ Current mental status ○ Formal mental status exam ○ Any psychotropic medication ○ Psychological testing ○ Mental health records ○ Police info ○ Prior diagnosis ○ Any alcohol or substance use ○ Defendant’s description of the offense Research Findings of Expert Decision Making ● Vary based on legal standards ● Experts can be biased, as their opinions tend to be more favorable to the side that retained them ● Judges/juries tend to agree with expert opinions ○ Agreement rates tend to be upwards of 90% ○ “Battle of the experts” is not the norm ● Experts rarely use instruments specifically designed to assess insanity ● Mental state at the time of the offense screening evaluation (MSE) ○ Semi-structured measure to assess issues related to criminal responsibility ■ Insanity Malingering ● 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 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 ● Voluntary intoxication = can’t be the basis for insanity but can be a basis for insufficient mens rea
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'