In the United States, variances in the insanity defense between states, and in the federal court system, are attributable to differences with respect to three key issues:
- Availability: whether the jurisdiction allows a defendant to raise the insanity defense,
- Definition: when the defense is available, what facts will support a finding of insanity, and
- Burden of proof: whether the defendant has the duty of proving insanity or the prosecutor has the duty of disproving insanity, and by what standard of proof.
In
Foucha v. Louisiana (1992) the
Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a person could not be held "indefinitely" for psychiatric treatment following a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity.
In the United States, a criminal defendant may plead insanity in federal court, and in the state courts of every state except for Idaho, Kansas, Montana, and Utah.
[52] However, defendants in states that disallow the insanity defense may still be able to demonstrate that a defendant was not capable of forming intent to commit a crime as a result of mental illness.
In
Kahler v. Kansas (2020), the
U.S. Supreme Court held, in a 6–3 ruling, that a state does not violate the
Due Process Clause by abolishing an insanity defense based on a defendant's incapacity to distinguish right from wrong. The Court emphasized that state governments have broad discretion to choose laws defining "the precise relationship between criminal culpability and mental illness."
[53]
Each state and the federal court system currently uses one of the following "tests" to define insanity for purposes of the insanity defense. Over its decades of use the definition of insanity has been modified by statute, with changes to the availability of the insanity defense, what constitutes legal insanity, whether the prosecutor or defendant has the
burden of proof, the standard of proof required at trial, trial procedures, and to commitment and release procedures for defendants who have been acquitted based on a finding of insanity.
[54]
The guidelines for the
M'Naghten Rules, state, among other things, and evaluating the criminal responsibility for defendants claiming to be insane were settled in the British courts in the case of Daniel M'Naghten in 1843.
[11] M'Naghten was a Scottish woodcutter who killed the secretary to the prime minister,
Edward Drummond, in a botched attempt to assassinate the prime minister himself. M'Naghten apparently believed that the prime minister was the architect of the myriad of personal and financial misfortunes that had befallen him.
[55] During his trial, nine witnesses testified to the fact that he was insane, and the jury acquitted him, finding him "not guilty by reason of insanity".
[55]
The
House of Lords asked the judges of the common law courts to answer five questions on insanity as a criminal defence,
[56][57] and the formulation that emerged from their review—that a defendant should not be held responsible for their actions only if, as a result of their mental disease or defect, they (i) did not know that their act would be wrong; or (ii) did not understand the nature and quality of their actions—became the basis of the law governing legal responsibility in cases of insanity in England. Under the rules, loss of control because of mental illness was no defense[
citation needed]. The M'Naghten rule was embraced with almost no modification by American courts and legislatures for more than 100 years, until the mid-20th century.
[11]
The strict M'Naghten standard for the insanity defense was widely used until the 1950s and the case of
Durham v. United States case.
[55] In the
Durham case, the court ruled that a defendant is entitled to acquittal if the crime was the
product of their mental illness (i.e., crime would not have been committed but for the disease). The
Durham rule, also called the Product Test, is broader than either the M'Naghten test or the
irresistible impulse test. The test has more lenient guidelines for the insanity defense, but it addressed the issue of convicting mentally ill defendants, which was allowed under the M'Naghten Rule.
[11] However, the Durham standard drew much criticism because of its expansive definition of legal insanity. It was abandoned in the 1970s, after the case of
United States v. Brawner (1972).
[58]
The
Model Penal Code, published by the
American Law Institute, provides the
ALI rule - a standard for legal insanity that serves as a compromise between the strict M'Naghten Rule, the lenient Durham ruling, and the irresistible impulse test. Under the MPC standard, which represents the modern trend, a defendant 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 their conduct or to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law." The test thus takes into account both the
cognitive and
volitional capacity of insanity.
After the
perpetrator of
President Reagan's assassination attempt was found not guilty by reason of insanity, Congress passed the
Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984. Under this act, the
burden of proof was shifted from the prosecution to the defense and the standard of evidence in federal trials was increased from a
preponderance of evidence to
clear and convincing evidence. The ALI test was discarded in favor of a new test that more closely resembled M'Naghten's. Under this new test only perpetrators suffering from severe mental illnesses at the time of the crime could successfully employ the insanity defense. The defendant's ability to control himself or herself was no longer a consideration.
The Act also curbed the scope of expert psychiatric testimony and adopted stricter procedures regarding the hospitalization and release of those found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Those acquitted of a federal offense by reason of insanity have not been able to challenge their psychiatric confinement through a
writ of habeas corpus or other remedies. In
Archuleta v. Hedrick, 365 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2004), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit the court ruled persons found not guilty by reason of insanity and later want to challenge their confinement may not attack their initial successful insanity defense:
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment: "Having thus elected to make himself a member of that 'exceptional class' of persons who seek verdicts of not guilty by reason of insanity...he cannot now be heard to complain of the statutory consequences of his election." The court held that no direct attack upon the final judgment of acquittal by reason of insanity was possible. It also held that the collateral attack that he was not informed that a possible alternative to his commitment was to ask for a new trial was not a meaningful alternative.
[59]
As an alternative to the insanity defense, some jurisdictions permit a defendant to plead guilty but mentally ill.
[54] A defendant who is found guilty but mentally ill may be sentenced to mental health treatment, at the conclusion of which the defendant will serve the remainder of their sentence in the same manner as any other defendant.
In a majority of states, the burden of proving insanity is placed on the defendant, who must prove insanity by a
preponderance of the evidence.
[60]
In a minority of states, the burden is placed on the prosecution, who must prove sanity
beyond reasonable doubt.
[60]
In federal court the burden is placed on the defendant, who must prove insanity by
clear and convincing evidence.
[61] See 18 U.S.C.S. Sec. 17(b); see also A.R.S. Sec. 13-502(C).
The insanity plea is used in the U.S Criminal Justice System in less than 1% of all
criminal cases.
[62] Little is known about the criminal justice system and the mentally ill:
[T]here is no
definitive study regarding the percentage of people with mental illness who come into contact with police, appear as criminal defendants, are incarcerated, or are under community supervision. Furthermore, the scope of this issue varies across jurisdictions. Accordingly, advocates should rely as much as possible on statistics collected by local and state government agencies.
[62]
Some U.S. states have begun to ban the use of the insanity defense, and in 1994 the Supreme Court denied a petition of
certiorari seeking review of a
Montana Supreme Court case that upheld Montana's abolition of the defense.
[63] Idaho,
Kansas, and
Utah have also banned the defense. However, a mentally ill defendant/patient can be found
unfit to stand trial in these states. In 2001, the
Nevada Supreme Court found that their state's abolition of the defense was unconstitutional as a violation of Federal
due process. In 2006, the Supreme Court decided
Clark v. Arizona upholding Arizona's limitations on the insanity defense. In that same ruling, the Court noted "We have never held that the Constitution mandates an insanity defense, nor have we held that the Constitution does not so require." In 2020, the Supreme Court decided
Kahler v. Kansas upholding Kansas' abolition of the insanity defense, stating that the Constitution does not require Kansas to adopt an insanity test that turns on a defendant's ability to recognize that their crime was morally wrong.
[64]
The insanity defense is also complicated because of the underlying differences in philosophy between psychiatrists/psychologists and legal professionals.
[65] In the United States, a psychiatrist, psychologist or other mental health professional is often consulted as an expert witness in insanity cases, but the ultimate
legal judgment of the defendant's sanity is determined by a jury, not by a mental health professional. In other words, mental health professionals provide testimony and professional opinion but are not ultimately responsible for answering legal questions.
[65]
en.wikipedia.org
