How was the Insanity Plea formed?
Insanity Defense Reform of 1983
[The act] amends the Federal criminal code to make it an affirmative defense to a Federal prosecution that the defendant, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, could not at the time the offense was committed appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of law."
Quote from Library of Congress
Therefore, the burden of proof, which normally falls upon the prosecution during trial, falls onto the defense. The defense must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the insanity of the defendant at the time the crime was committed. The act also prohibits expert witnesses from testifying their personal opinion, which is normally admissible in court, on behalf of the ultimate legal issues of the case.
The defendant can also plead, "not guilty by reason on insanity" instead of simply "not guilty" or "guilty." If the judge does in fact side with the defense, the defendant will be placed into the custody of the Attorney General. From there, the Attorney General is directed to release the defendant to the State or hospitalize the defendant in a suitable facility. This is for the reason that there is a substantial risk that the defendant, with their mental disease or defect, could cause bodily injury to another. After the defendant is deemed no longer a harm to the population, the government attorney shall hold a hearing to determine if the defendant may be released or conditionally discharged. However, any conditional discharge may be revoked.
The defendant can also plead, "not guilty by reason on insanity" instead of simply "not guilty" or "guilty." If the judge does in fact side with the defense, the defendant will be placed into the custody of the Attorney General. From there, the Attorney General is directed to release the defendant to the State or hospitalize the defendant in a suitable facility. This is for the reason that there is a substantial risk that the defendant, with their mental disease or defect, could cause bodily injury to another. After the defendant is deemed no longer a harm to the population, the government attorney shall hold a hearing to determine if the defendant may be released or conditionally discharged. However, any conditional discharge may be revoked.
Limiting Title 18
Bill 97 amends the federal criminal code (Title 18) making the use of the defendant's mental condition exempt by the defense in any charge of criminal conduct. It also allows expert evidence on the issue of mens rea or any state of mind to be utilized by the prosecution.
The limit to Title 18 permits the court to allow a person currently suffering from a mental disease or defect, to serve all or a part of their sentence in the custody of a suitable facility. It also allows for the transfer of the defendant to Federal prison when they:
- have recovered from their mental condition.
- are no longer in need of custody, care, or treatment.
- will not benefit from from further custody, care, or treatment.
The Decision Making Process
as listed by The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
as listed by The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
- Introduction
- Previous Research: As stated in Harry S. Truman's Executive Order 10214, if the accused's attorney suspects that that the accused lacks mental capacity or that he/she was not mentally responsible at the time of the charged offense, the attorney should initiate an inquiry into the mental condition of the accused.
- The Present Study
- Method
- Sample Description
- Measures
- Procedures
- Results
- Sample Characteristics
- The Forensic Evaluation
- Client Participation in the Decision to Seek Evaluation
- Client Competence as Perceived by Their Attorneys
- Case Disposition and Outcome
- Defendant's Reactions to CFP Evaluation
- Overall Participation in Decision Making
- The Decision Whether to Pursue an NGRI Defense
- Explanation to Attorney's Preemptive Behavior
- Discussion
- The Ambiguous Legal Norm
- Attorney Paternalism
- Conclusion
For more information, visit The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
The failure to revise and reform our criminal laws has |
Federal Criminal Code ProjectThe term "insanity" has multiple different interpretations. However as of 1974, there was no federal statute defining the insanity defense. Due to this, uncertainty and lack of uniformity were established in most all cases that argued the insanity defense. An example would include the fact that there were at least five different formulas to determine insanity in all 11 circuits however, insanity tests varied from court to court.
|
Why is the insanity plea in a rhetoric museum?
Law and Justice: The Study of RhetoricRhetoric, as defined by Aristotle, is a study in which to identify the available means of persuasion.
The American Psychiatric Association, which discusses the science behind the field of psychiatry, opens up its website to questions and answers regarding the insanity plea. One argument found on this page, that was both addressed in formal and informal rhetoric by psychiatrists, states that "many criminals try to use the insanity defense to escape severe punishment." Although, evidence has shown that the insanity plea is only actually pursued in one percent or fewer of criminal cases and it is only successful in about 25% of these cases. However, when selecting specific facts like this, we ignore several others. This includes the absolute number of successful insanity pleas that are used, as well as the involvement of psychiatrists in the sentencing process and their participation in plea bargains and the rest of the criminal justice system. Cited in Vatz |
The study of rhetoric and the relationship between situations and rhetoric have critical importance for understanding and criticizing some of the more invalid practices of psychiatry. None of these applications is more apt and more important than what perhaps is the most questionable extant psychiatric role in our society– support of the insanity plea." |