Mississippi’s rules of criminal procedure are very clear that a person’s competency to stand trial is completely separate from whether a person was sane at the time of an alleged defense. That is a completely separate issue from whether the insanity defense applies. In other words, the key question is whether the client understands what is going on. The major question is whether the accused is mentally capable of assisting his attorney in preparation of the defense, and therefore being certain that a person is competent to stand trial. There are actually two things that must be considered when proposing an insanity defense: 1) competency and 2) the person’s mental state during the alleged crime.Ĭompetency is very straightforward. Many junior or inexperienced lawyers want to automatically assert the insanity defense, especially if the underlying charge is something incredibly serious, like murder. The harsh reality is that in the criminal defense world, trying to assert an insanity defense is a very dangerous game. Because of that misconception, we often have people contact us and believe that they can claim the insanity defense, especially if the person was under the influence of a controlled substance at the time of the alleged crime. Popular movies like Primal Fear make it look as though if a person is found not guilty by reason of insanity, then it is automatically a get-out-of-jail-free card. You should become familiar with the statute in your state in the event you become involved with such a case.Almost everyone has heard about the insanity defense, but not a whole lot of people understand what exactly it is and how it works. Understanding the different standards makes it easier to perform an examination, but more important for psychiatrists than the general information above is that the insanity defense standard varies from state to state. This particular question has been taken care of in general through specific statutes in municipalities that describe the criminal ramifications of clear actus reus in the setting of a person where mens rea might be absent for reasons that are in the apparent control of the individual. If someone is under the influence of hallucinogenic compounds and, therefore, in a psychotic state, it is easy to see how they can act under the influence of the paranoia or hallucinations that often result. In such cases, people are obviously in an abnormal state of mind and to some degree are not aware of their actions and the subsequent ramifications. It may seem from the description above that the insanity defense may leave a loophole for individuals who seemingly break the law, but do so under the influence of drugs, such as alcohol and hallucinogens. The language of the statute includes this standard and pushed back the Durham product rule. This act set a standard that in some ways returned to the historic rule of knowing right from wrong. Following the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan, legislation was passed in the United States called the Comprehensive Crime Control Act. It is therefore often referred to as the “product rule.”Ĭomprehensive Crime Control Act. This rule generally is considered a broadening of the insanity defense as it focuses on whether the action was the result or product of a mental disease or defect. The Durham rule is so named because it grew from a decision in 1954 in a case called Durham v.
The irresistible impulse standard focuses on the ability of the defendant to have control over his or her actions at the time of the crime. The court described what is now known as the M'Naughten Standard, and in simplified form it says that at the time of the act, the person had a mental disease or defect that interfered with his ability to understand the nature and quality of the act he was performing or if he knew so, he did not know it was wrong. The high court found him insane and he was hospitalized. It originated in Britain where, in 1843, M'Naughten murdered the secretary of the Prime Minister (in an attempt to kill the Prime Minister) believing there was a conspiracy against him involving the government. This standard is the classic example of the insanity defense. It is difficult to imagine how the standard might change without experience in the field, and there are some standards that all should be aware of who delve into the field, as follows: The reaction was, in general, toward a narrowing of who could qualify and with what standard they should be examined. Hinckley, was not guilty by reason of insanity. For example, in the wake of the shooting of Ronald Reagan, there was widespread and rapid reaction to the finding that the perpetrator, Mr.
Like most things in the law, it constantly is evolving and does so within the greater cultural context. One thing that may not be apparent to those who read about cases or hear about them on television is that the insanity defense standard is not static.
0 kommentar(er)
