Notes on Insanity Assessment Standards and APA Formatting Guidelines

Insanity Assessment: Lecture Notes

Overview of Insanity Standards

  • The lecture discusses three primary standards for assessing insanity in legal contexts:

    • M’Naghten Standard:

    • Definition: The individual must be suffering from a "defect of reason from a disease of the mind."

    • Criteria: The accused must not know the nature of their actions or, if they know it, not understand that it was wrong.

    • Type: Cognitive test (ability to understand the nature/wrongfulness of actions).

    • ALI/MPC Standard:

    • Definition: 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 law.

    • Type: Combined cognitive and volitional criteria (understanding the law and conforming conduct).

    • Durham Standard:

    • Definition: An accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect.

    • Type: Product test (connections between actions and mental illness).

New York Insanity Standard

  • The legal standard for insanity in New York can be found in Penal Law (PL) 40.15:

    • Definition: In any prosecution for an offense, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant lacked criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect.

    • Implications: This means that at the time of the conduct, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate the nature and consequences of their conduct or that it was wrong.

    • Terminology: Defendants meeting this standard are labeled as "not responsible" rather than "insane." The defense is referred to as Not Responsible Due to Mental Disease or Defect (NGRMDD).

Local Standard: Key Points

  • New York's local standard is an iteration of the ALI/MPC standard.

  • Burden of Proof: The defense has the burden of proof “by the preponderance of the evidence.”

  • Competency: The defendant must be deemed fit to proceed before pursuing an insanity defense.

  • Expert Witnesses: Typically involves two expert witnesses (one for each party) to evaluate the defendant.

    • Ultimate Issue Testimony: Permitted under Article 7.01(3) where opinions that address ultimate issues can be admissible.

Role of Expert Testimony in Insanity Assessments

  • Importance of Expert Opinion: Research indicates that in 91% of cases, judges defer to the expert's opinion regarding insanity (Packer, 2015).

  • Mental State: Insanity reflects the defendant's mental state at the time of the crime, requiring assessment of their experiences during that moment.

  • Psychometric Instruments: Developed, but not routinely applied in evaluations.

    • Challenge: Timeliness of assessments, as a significant time lapse may alter the defendant’s mental state.

    • Variability in State Standards: The relevance of instruments must align with current state practices.

    • Assessment Difficulty: The ability to understand the nature and wrongfulness of actions is subjective and harder to quantify than knowledge of courtroom personnel.

Psychometric Tools for Insanity Assessments

  • Mental State at the Time of the Offense (MSE):

    • Developed by Slobogin et al. (1984) as a screening tool to exclude defendants without significant mental disorders.

    • If mental diseases or defects are indicated, the defendant is referred for comprehensive psychiatric evaluation.

    • Criticism: Nicholson (1999) critiques the MSE for lacking clear administration instructions and scoring systems.

  • Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scale (R-CRAS):

    • Most comprehensive and validated instrument used for assessing insanity.

    • Development: Created with an intent to align with the ALI standard but can also fit M’Naghten and GMBI standards (Rogers & Sewell, 1999).

    • Structure: Breaks down insanity criteria into 30 variables ranked regarding their relevance.

    • Evaluator Role: Clinical interviews are crucial for weighing the presence of these factors, such as delusions at the instant of the offense (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).

Reliability and Validity of R-CRAS

  • High Reliability: The R-CRAS has demonstrated high reliability (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021) and construct validity (Rogers & Sewell, 1999).

  • Malingering Assessment: The R-CRAS has specific items designed to address malingering, providing added value in evaluations.

  • Limitations: Some argue it attempts to quantify unmeasurable factors, though it remains a primary tool for insanity assessments.

  • Usage: Should not be the sole factor; best used in conjunction with other evaluations to enhance overall assessment quality.

Objective Assessment Methods - Insanity Evaluations

  • Objective Assessment Tools: The use of psychometric tests like R-CRAS allows evaluators to gather data beyond self-reports.

  • Importance of Comprehensive Reviews: A thorough examination of the defendant's history and situation leading up to the offense is vital.

  • "State of Mind" Evaluations: These assessments are referred to as state of mind or sanity evaluations, which include detailed reconstructions of circumstances before, during, and after the offense.

APA Formatting Rules for Papers

  • Basic Structure of APA Paper:

    1. Title page.

    2. Abstract (rare for student papers).

    3. Main text/body of the paper.

    4. References.

    5. Tables or figures (if applicable).

    6. Appendix (if applicable).

  • Font Options:

    • 10 pt: Lucida Sans Unicode

    • 11 pt: Calibri, Arial, Georgia

    • 12 pt: Times New Roman

  • Margins: 1 inch.

  • Spacing: Double spacing, no extra spaces after paragraphs.

  • Section Labels: Centered and bolded (e.g., “References”).

  • Headings: Optional headings within the body of the paper are permitted by APA format.

In-text Citations Usage

  • When to Use In-text Citations:

    1. Reference any research or study findings; initially cite the study only in the first sentence of a paragraph discussing it.

    2. When combining studies, more frequent citations are essential to clarify sources.

  • Specific Examples of In-text Citations:

    • Paraphrasing: Always include citations for paraphrased ideas.

    • Direct Quotes: Required citation with the page number for quote references (e.g., (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021, p. 301)).

    • Narrative Citations: Use LastName (YYYY) format and spell out "and" rather than using "&".

    • Use “et al.” for citations with three or more authors even on the first reference.

Reference List Formatting

  • Necessary Components: List every source reviewed, including empirical articles and bills referenced in the text.

  • Order of Citations: Alphabetized by author, chronological order for multiple works by one author.

  • Reference Formatting:

    • Articles:
      LastName, X. X. (YEAR). Title of work: Capital letter at subtitle. Name of Journal Article, Vol#(Issue#), 000 - 000. DOI: xxxxx

    • Books:
      LastName, X. X. (YEAR). Title of work: Capital letter at subtitle. Publisher. DOI ?

  • Double-spacing in reference lists; use hanging indent after the first line. No spaces between references.