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