Forensic Psychology: Insanity, Criminal Responsibility, and Diminished Capacity

Introduction to Insanity Defense

  • Controversial Aspect of Criminal Law

    • Contentious topic characterized by fascination with high-profile cases

    • Defendants may admit to actions but claim insanity

  • Case Study: Andrea Yates

    • Drowned her five children due to severe mental illness

    • Initially convicted of first-degree murder

    • Conviction overturned due to false expert testimony

    • Found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) in retrial due to postpartum depression

  • Public Reaction

    • Mixed responses regarding the balance between mental health absolution and accountability

Criminal Responsibility

  • Historical Perspectives

    • The Talmud: Historically exempted certain groups (e.g., minors, deaf mutes) from punishment due to mental limitations

  • Definition

    • Encompasses situations where an individual lacks the specific mental state required for criminal guilt

Relationship Between Insanity, Competency, and Civil Commitment

  • Key Distinctions

    • Insanity: Evaluation of the mental state at the exact time of the crime

    • Competency: Assessment of the current mental state regarding the ability to understand court proceedings

    • Civil Commitment: Institutionalization based on current mental health status and safety

  • Evaluations

    • Can involve retrospective examinations which may lead to confusion if terms are conflated by legal professionals

Legal Definitions and Standards

  • Insanity as a Legal Defense

    • A legal term reflecting profound impairment affecting reality perception, not just a clinical diagnosis

  • Major Standards

    • Wild Beast Standard (1724): No punishment for those lacking understanding or memory like an animal

    • M'Naghten Rule (1843): Cognitive focus on whether the defendant knew the nature of the act or that it was wrong

    • Durham Rule (1954): Acts must be a product of mental disease or defect

    • Brawner Rule (1972): Lacks substantial capacity to appreciate wrongfulness or conform conduct

    • Insanity Defense Reform Act (1984): Tightened criteria and shifted the burden of proof to the defendant

    • Guilty but Mentally Ill (GBMI): A middle-ground verdict allowing for treatment while maintaining criminal responsibility

Challenges and Misconceptions

  • Public Misconceptions

    • Belief that the defense is overused and results in "getting off"

  • Actual Statistics

    • Raised in only 1\% of felony cases

    • Resulting in acquittal in only 26\% of that 1\%

  • Acquittee Characteristics

    • Research shows that many have severe mental illnesses like psychosis or mood disorders, rather than being malingerers

Related Concepts

  • Diminished Capacity

    • Evidence of mental status used to negate specific intent required for a charge without claiming full insanity

  • Automatism

    • Refers to involuntary actions (e.g., sleepwalking, seizures) not necessarily stemming from mental illness

  • Intoxication

    • Voluntary and involuntary intoxication can impact mens rea and serve as alternative defenses

Evaluation Procedures and Instruments

  • Common Procedures

    • Typically involves clinical interviews, forensic assessment instruments, and third-party data collection

    • Lacks a single standardized professional approach

  • Forensic Assessment Instruments

    • R-CRAS: Designed to structure evaluations but faces criticism regarding its measurement of legal criteria

  • Malingering

    • Evaluated during assessments; actual rates of successfully feigning mental illness are low, though symptom exaggeration occurs