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 4 TH CHILD AND ON MEDS; 4 HOSPITALIZATIONS VERY SERIOUS DEPRESSED AFTER 5 TH 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