Terri Ronlev
English 2010
April 1, 2011
Instructor Bown
What is the insanity defense?
There are a very low number of
offenders that attempt it.
A defense asserted by an accused
in a criminal prosecution to avoid
The M'Naghten rule
liability for the commission of a
The M'Naghten rule is a test for criminal
crime because, at the time of the
insanity. Under the M'Naghten rule, a
crime, the person did not
criminal defendant is not guilty by
appreciate the nature or quality
reason of insanity if, at the time of the
or wrongfulness of the acts.
alleged criminal act, the defendant was
(Legal Dictionary)
so deranged that she did not know the
Is it successful? Only about
one-third of the cases are
successful.
nature or quality of her actions or, if she
knew the nature and quality of her
actions, she was so deranged that she
did not know that what she was doing
Is it overused?The defense has
was wrong.
been inflamed by the media.
Fact Sheet
Page 1
Terri Ronlev
English 2010
April 1, 2011
Instructor Bown
The M'Naghten rule on criminal insanity
later overturned in the case U.S. v.
is named for Daniel M'Naghten, who, in
Brawner, 471 F.2d 969 (1972). After the
1843, tried to kill England's prime
1970s, U.S. jurisdictions have tended to
minister Sir Robert Peel. M'Naghten
not recognize this argument as it places
thought Peel wanted to kill him, so he
emphasis on "mental disease or defect"
tried to shoot Peel but instead shot and
and thus on testimony by psychiatrists
killed Peel's secretary, Edward
and is argued to be somewhat
Drummond. Medical experts testified
ambiguous.
that M'Naghten was psychotic, and
M'Naghten was found not guilty by
The "Model Penal Code" Test for
Legal Insanity
reason of insanity”(legal-dictionary).
In response to the criticisms of the
The Durham Rule
various tests for the insanity defense,
The Durham Rule or "product test" was
the American Law Institute (ALI)
adopted by the United States Court of
designed a new test for its Model Penal
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Code in 1962. Under this test, "a person
Circuit in 1954, in the case of Durham v.
is not responsible for criminal conduct if
U.S. (214 F.2d 862), and states that "...
at the time of such conduct as a result
an accused is not criminally responsible
of mental disease or defect he lacks
if his unlawful act was the product of
substantial capacity either to appreciate
mental disease or defect". Durham was
the criminality of his conduct or to
Fact Sheet
Page 2
Terri Ronlev
English 2010
April 1, 2011
Instructor Bown
conform his conduct to the requirements
Irresistible Impulse Test, and the
of the law."
diagnosis of mental disease and defect
The Model Penal Code test is much
required by Durham.
broader than the M'Naghten Rule and
This broad based rule received wide
the Irresistible Impulse Test. It asks
acceptance, and by 1982 all federal
whether defendants have a substantial
courts and a majority of state courts
incapacity to appreciate the criminality
had adopted the ALI test. While some
of their conduct or to conform their
states have since dropped the ALI test,
conduct to the law rather than the
and it no longer applies at the federal
absolute knowledge required by
level, 18 states still use the ALI test in
M'Naghten and the absolute inability to
their definitions of insanity (Findlaw).
control conduct required by the
Irresistible Impulse Test.
The ALI test also requires that the
mental disease or defect be a mental
diagnosis. In this way, it manages to
incorporate elements of all three of its
predecessors: the knowledge of right
and wrong required by M'Naghten, the
prerequisite of lack of control in the
Fact Sheet
Current Application of the Insanity
Defense
The question of who has the
burden of proof with an insanity
defense has been a source of
controversy. Before the Hinckley
verdict, a majority of states had the
burden of proof rest with the state;
that is, the prosecutor had to prove
Page 3
Terri Ronlev
English 2010
April 1, 2011
Instructor Bown
that the defendant was not insane.
confined for longer than their
After the Hinckley verdict, the vast
prison terms would have been. In
majority of states required the
the case of Jones v. United States,
defense to prove that the
the Supreme Court in 1983 backed
defendant was indeed insane. In
this proposition, ruling that the
states where the burden is on the
sentence that criminal defendants
defense to prove insanity, the
would have received had they been
defense is required to show either
convicted should have no bearing
by clear and convincing evidence or
on how long they could be
by a preponderance of the evidence
committed to a mental hospital.
that the defendant is insane. In
states where the burden is still on
prosecutors to prove sanity, they
are required to prove it beyond a
reasonable doubt.
After Hinckley, many states
changed their commitment policies
to ensure that a defendant found
not guilty by reason of insanity
would be required to stay in a
Contrary to uninformed opinion,
mental hospital for a certain period
defendants found not guilty by
of time for evaluation following
reason of insanity are not simply
acquittal. Previously, no time was
released from custody. They are
specified. Also, several states
generally committed to mental
changed the burden of proof for
hospitals where they can be
Fact Sheet
Page 4
Terri Ronlev
English 2010
April 1, 2011
Instructor Bown
release from the state to
proving the defense of insanity by
defendants.
clear and convincing evidence."
The Federal Insanity Defense
Reform Act
Previously under federal law, the
government had the burden of
proving sanity.
The federal Insanity Defense
Reform Act of 1984, codified at 18
Guilty but Mentally Ill
U.S.C. § 17, provides: "It is an
Finally, the Hinckley verdict
affirmative defense to a
accelerated the adoption of "guilty
prosecution under any Federal
but mentally ill" verdicts by states.
statute that, at the time of the
The "guilty but mentally ill" verdict
commission of the acts constituting
allows mentally ill defendants to be
the offense, the defendant, as a
found criminally liable and requires
result of a severe mental disease or
them to receive psychiatric
defect, was unable to appreciate
treatment while incarcerated, or,
the nature and quality of the
alternatively, to be placed in a
wrongfulness of his acts. Mental
mental hospital and then, when
disease or defect does not
they are well enough, to be moved
otherwise constitute a defense."
to a prison to serve their
The act provided that "the
sentences. Laws allowing pleas and
defendant has the burden of
verdicts of guilty but mentally ill
Fact Sheet
Page 5
Terri Ronlev
English 2010
April 1, 2011
Instructor Bown
were first adopted in Michigan in
The Insanity Defense Among the
1975, and concurrent with or
subsequent to the Hinckley trial
were adopted by 12 more states.
(Findlaw)
States
Four states, including Kansas, Montana,
Idaho, Utah, do not allow the insanity
defense. In other states, the standards
for proving this defense vary widely.
The following provides the status of the
insanity defense in each jurisdiction:
(facts from Findlaw inserted in graph by
Ronlev)
Status according to States
Modified
M'Naghte
n Rule
10%
Modified
Model
Penal
Code
12%
Abolished
8%
Durham
Standard
2%
Fact Sheet
M'Naghte
n Rule
33%
Model
Penal
Code
35%
Page 6
Terri Ronlev
English 2010
April 1, 2011
Instructor Bown
Myth
Insanity: Myth or Fact?
o
According to 1998 opinion
polls, 90 % of Americans
Myth
believe the insanity
o
Clever and wealthy
defense is overused and a
defendants routinely fake
ticket to freedom for
insanity in order to get out
murderers.
of trouble
Fact
Fact
o
o
An eight state study
It is unlikely that many
funded by the National
criminal defendants
Institute of Health found
attempt to "fake" insanity
1/2 of those pleading
because it is very risky for
insanity were charged with
any criminal defendant; all
nonviolent crimes such as
chances to plea bargain
property damage and
and contest material facts
minor felonies
of the case are lost
o
less than 15 % were
charged with murder
Fact Sheet
Page 7
Terri Ronlev
English 2010
April 1, 2011
Instructor Bown
Myth
o
numerous individuals
knowing that he can later
Killers deemed "Not Guilty
plead insanity to go free
by Reason of Insanity"
ultimately are turned loose
Fact
to pose a threat to society
o
at large
Fact
o
The typical "Not Guilty by
Reason of Insanity"
defendant is: (1) an
Persons successfully
pleading insanity spend
more time in a mental
hospital than they would if
found guilty and sentenced
to jail
abused wife driven to kill
by years of physical abuse;
or (2) a depressed
individual who kills
persons close to him
(parents, child, lover)
(http://www.nlm.nih.gov)
Myth
o
The typical defendant
using insanity is a coldblooded murderer who kills
Fact Sheet
Page 8
Terri Ronlev
English 2010
April 1, 2011
Instructor Bown
WORKS CITED
"Insanity." Columbia Electronic
Brickfield, Paul B. “The Insanity Defense
Among the States – Criminal
Encyclopedia, 6th Edition (2010): 1.
Law.” Criminal Law Center –
MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 10
Criminal Law. Web. 1 Apr. 2011.
Apr. 2011.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crime
"M'Naghten Rule." West's Encyclopedia
of American Law, edition 2. 2008.
The Gale Group 12 Apr. 2011
s/more criminal-topics/insanitydefense/the- insanity-defenseamong-the-states.html
http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/
M'Naghten+Rule
Brickfield, Paul B. “Insanity Defense:
The model penal code.” Criminal
Law Center – Criminal Law. Web.
Acorn, Annalise. "Is Insanity a
Demeaning Defense? Examining
the Ethics of Offender
Pathologization through the
Lens of the Classics." Journal of
Forensic Psychology Practice
11.2/3 (2011): 204. MasterFILE
Premier.EBSCO. Web. 12 Apr.
2011.
Fact Sheet
1 Apr. 2011.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crime
s/more -criminal-topics/insanitydefense/the- model-penal-codetest.html
"NCJRS Abstract." National Criminal
Justice Reference
Service.
Web. 17 Apr. 2011.
Page 9
Terri Ronlev
English 2010
April 1, 2011
Instructor Bown
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publicati
History of Psychiatry (2004):
ons/abstract.aspx?ID=95212
1-63. Web. 5 Apr. 2011.
<http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd
" Insanity: Myth or Fact." UMKC
/pdf/historypsychiatry.pdf>.
School of Law. Web. 17 Apr.
2011.
<http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty
/projects/ftrials/hinckley/myth.
htm>.
American Psychiatric, A. (1984).
Issues in forensic psychiatry :
insanity defense, hospitalization
of adults, model civil commitment
law, sentencing process, child
custody consultation.
Washington, DC: Distributed by
American Psychiatric
Press.8507199
Martin, Emily, and Lorna Rose.
"Resources on the History of
Psychiatry." Resources on the
Fact Sheet
Page 10