Ideology as determinant of views on the insanity defense

This research explores the hypothesis that an individual's position on the insanity defense is a function of his/her underlying ideology. Fifty-seven clinical psychologists and fifty-five psychiatrists in the United States responded to a questionnaire that measured their beliefs about personal vs. social responsibility for crime, the frequency of their own experience as expert witnesses in insanity cases, and their attitudes toward the insanity defense. As predicted, locus of responsibility for crime was found to have a highly significant curvilinear relationship to attitude toward the insanity defense, with very liberal and very conservative subjects being most anti-insanity defense. Psychiatrists, and those with more expert witness experience, were also significantly more favorable toward the insanity defense.     

Predicting verdicts,adherence to judge's instructions,and assumptions about the disposition of the defendant in a case involving the insanity defense

Abstract

296 college students and jury eligible adults completed attitudinal measures and read a case summary of a murder trial involving the insanity defense. The case summary included opening and closing arguments, testimony from expert witnesses, and judge's instructions. Although broader legal attitudes (the PJAQ) predicted verdicts, the Insanity Defense Attitudes-Revised scale provided incremental predictive validity. Attitudes related to the insanity defense also predicted adherence to judge's instructions, whereas more general legal biases predicted a juror's willingness to change their verdict after being provided with accurate information about the defendant's disposition following the verdict. Importantly, misconceptions concerning the insanity defense impacted verdicts and many jurors made decisions that failed to adhere to the judge's instructions, though the nullification tendency does appear to vary as a function of pretrial juror attitudes. Implications for instructing jurors in insanity defense cases will be discussed.     

论中国死刑案件中的精神病抗辩

随着权利话语的流行与国家对被告人权益保护的增强,中国死刑案件中的被告方在庭审阶段频频提出精神病抗辩,意图减轻罪责或不负刑事责任。然而,实践中却显示出如下悖论:被告方虽时时提出抗辩,但法庭却不愿启动精神病鉴定程序。这一现象的原因在于:当前被告方提出精神病抗辩的证明责任分配不明;被判无罪精神病人的监管难题与强制治疗措施缺乏;精神病鉴定一再反复导致法官无以判案等等。因此,在我国近年越来越重视死刑案件审判程序的背景下,有必要重构被告人精神病抗辩的合理制度,使其在维护被告人正当权益的前提下也不至于无章可循、变得过度泛滥。     

PMS,psychosis and culpability: sound or misguided defense?

Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS) is believed to affect up to 90% of women of reproductive age. A small subset of women have been identified who actually experience psychotic symptoms in the premenstrual phase of their cycles. Not surprisingly, PMS has made it into the courts where it has been offered as a defense for criminal acts. The defense has generally fared poorly in the United States, although it has been successfully used as a factor in supporting diminished capacity in Great Britain. The following paper sets out to review the medical literature on premenstrual syndrome with a particular focus on premenstrual psychosis. Available literature from both medical and legal sources is then utilized to investigate instances in which premenstrual psychosis has been invoked as a defense in the courts.     

精神病辩护：历史、社会与现实

精神病辩护制度在普通法国家具有长久之历史,特别在美国,其不仅具有比较完善的刑事责任能力法则,而且其精神病辩护的案件也备受社会各界瞩目。而精神病辩护制度、相关立法或者司法实践活动并不是与世隔绝、生活在真空中的产物,其受到社会、政治、伦理道德等各种因素的影响。同时,即使在精神病辩护制度最为发达的美国,与人们印象中不同的是,实际上精神病辩护并未获得多大的成功,从而形成想象与现实的落差。对于我国而言,应从精神病辩护制度之历史、社会与现实多个视角或者因素考虑,从而确立一种渐进的或者改良的中国刑事责任能力法则或者辩护制度。     

‘Madness is a Woman’: Constance Kent and Victorian Constructions of Female Insanity

Puerperal insanity has attracted significant academic attention in cases of Victorian child killing when mothers killed their young children. This article expands the focus of the puerperal insanity narratives in order to address how, or whether these discourses influenced the wider realm of female insanity. By using the Constance Kent case as an exemplar the article explores how medical and legal ‘tests’ translated into a social conception of female insanity. The preponderance of press reports and the decisions reached suggest insanity came to be a ready social answer when women killed children.     

The military insanity defense

This article describes the military insanity defense. The success of the litigated insanity defense is explored through the number of insanity acquittals over a 28-month period. A questionnaire distributed to all United States Army psychiatrists provided information on the number of forensic evaluations performed, the number of not criminally responsible (NCR) opinions made, and the disposition of noncontested NCR opinions. The questionnaire also tested the Army psychiatrists' knowledge about recent changes in the military insanity defense. This pilot study raises interesting questions about the military insanity defense that further research can address.     

Depressed but not legally mentally impaired

This article examines the mental impairment (insanity) defense in the Australian state of Victoria and argues that the defense is successful only when offenders suffer from psychotic mental illnesses. This raises the question about how non-psychotic offenders are dealt with by the courts when they claim ‘mental impairment’ for serious acts of violence such as homicide, particularly when a relatively large number of perpetrators involved in homicide suffer from non-psychotic illnesses like depression. The analysis shows that depressive illnesses do not reach the threshold for mental impairment (legal insanity) such that they mitigate violent criminal behavior, although they can, arguably, diminish culpability. This article draws upon existing literature, qualitative analysis of two court cases and semi-structured interviews with four legal representatives to make its conclusions.     

A comparison of insanity defense standards on juror decision making

Following the Hinckley acquittal, 17 states and the federal government made changes to the insanity defense, including revising the standard, reassigning the burden of proof, and altering the standard of proof. Two studies were conducted to determine whether the specific insanity standard (including the assignment of burden of proof and standard of proof) employed had a significant effect on mock jurors' verdicts. Participants' comprehension of insanity defense instructions was measured and the factors jurors used to decide whether to find the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) were also assessed. Participants' comprehension of insanity defense standards was very low. When asked to identify the factors they considered important in determining whether to find a defendant NGRI, only three elements of insanity defense standards were identified as significant. The results may have important implications for policy decisions regarding the insanity defense.     

New perspectives in the legal psychiatry of cocaine-related crimes.

The legal criteria for the insanity defense as it applies to cocaine-related crimes remains elusive because of cocaine's unique spectrum of effects on human thought and action. This paper discusses the literature relevant to cocaine and forensic psychiatry/psychology, and summarizes the results of a survey of forensic psychiatrists on the topic of drug-induced psychosis. A conceptual framework is posited for the expert witness to distinguish the separable effects of cocaine on human behavior and to clarify their relationship to criminal responsibility.     

United States v. Lyons: toward a new conception of legal insanity

In United States v. Lyons (1984), the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court altered its definition of legal insanity to conform with recent recommendations of the American Bar Association and the American Psychiatric Association. This paper briefly reviews the social and legal context of the Court's ruling. The author then discusses the insanity defense's rationale and suggests an interpretation of the Court's new definition that should guide psychiatric testimony.     

Disposition of insanity acquittees in the United States Military

Recent amendments to the United States Code of Military Justice have essentially adopted the federal mental nonresponsibility rule or insanity defense. The prior standard, as outlined in the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, has been abandoned. Notably absent is a system to address the disposition of the military insanity acquittee. This raises concerns regarding recidivism and the military's role in mitigating potential dangerousness. Relevant civilian and military law is reviewed, two cases described, and possible remedies proposed.     

AN ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD THE INSANITY DEFENSE*

Results from a public opinion survey of knowledge, attitudes, and support for the insanity defense indicate that people dislike the insanity defense for both retributive and utilitarian reasons: they want insane lawbreakers punished, and they believe that insanity defense procedures fail to protect the public. However, people vastly overestimate the use and success of the insanity plea. Several attitudinal and demographic variables that other researchers have found to be associated with people's support for the death penalty and perceptions of criminal sentencing are also related to support for the insanity defense. Implications for public policy are discussed.     

精神病辩护制度研究——基于美国精神病辩护制度的思考

由于刑事责任的承担要求行为人对自己行为的社会危害性有认识和控制能力,某些精神病人对自己行为的社会危害性没有认识或无法控制,因而无法对自己的行为承担刑事责任,精神病也就成了刑事辩护的重要事由。在美国刑事审判中,精神病是无罪辩护的重要理由,判例法与刑事立法共同形成了一套较为完善的精神病辩护制度。在美国,精神病辩护制度的存废问题一直备受争议;精神病法律标准处于变化之中,各法域标准不一;精神病辩护的提出、审理程序、证明责任分配与证明标准、裁定及专家证人的作用有其特点;因精神病而判无罪者的关押与释放形成了特定规则。我们可以借鉴其制度的某些合理因素,健全和完善我国的精神病辩护制度。     

Myths of the insanity defense: Inherent and procedural obstacles

Often societies perceptions can be shaped by the media not only by what it reports but by how it is reported. This article discusses the impact that the American media has had on the social perception that the insanity defense is too often successfully used to avoid legal and criminal culpability. Many of the procedural obstacles associated with the assertion of an insanity defense are poorly understood or ignored. The article further address some of the less attractive characteristics associated with the assertion of the insanity defense that are not procedurally founded but nonetheless serve as an impediment the wide spread use of the defense. In conclusion the insanity defense is submitted as an unavoidable necessary evil in a civilized society that incarcerates its criminals.     

The trial of Abner Baker, Jr., MD: monomania and McNaughtan rules in antebellum America

On the third of October 1845, in a small mountain community in Kentucky, Abner Baker, Jr., MD, was executed for the murder of his brother-in-law Daniel Bates. At the trial Baker's attorney argued unsuccessfully that at the time of the crime the accused suffered from monomania, a form of mental disease, and therefore should not be held responsible for the act. The trial bears historical significance by the fact that it took place only a year after the formation of the Association of Medical Superintendents of American Institutions for the Insane, the first professional organization of psychiatrists in the United States, and two years after the McNaughtan ruling in British jurisprudence which molded the insanity plea around the concept of "knowing right from wrong." Because it took place at this particular juncture in the history of both law and medicine, it provides a revealing portrait of how medical and legal concepts on insanity interacted with the indigenous social and political circumstances of antebellum America.     

The insanity defense: effects of abolition unsupported by a moral consensus

The insanity defense reflects the moral judgment that some criminal defendants do not deserve criminal sanctions because of mental incapacity. This Note examines the alternative formulations, such as guilty but mentally ill and diminished responsibility, that some states have enacted in the face of growing controversy over the insanity defense. It observes that the alternatives, if used in lieu of the insanity defense, distort the criminal law and do not comport with the legal doctrine of responsibility, which eschews punishing mentally ill defendants. The Note concludes that the insanity defense should not be abolished unless the moral consensus changes regarding the criminal responsibility of mentally ill defendants.     

The social construction of criminal responsibility and insanity

This study examines the effects of judicial instructions (traditional American Law Institute [ALI] not guilty by reason of insanity [NGRI] instructions contrasted with ALI instructions supplemented with the guilty but mentally ill [GBMI] alternative) and case information cues (delusional content and planfulness) on student and community subjects' attributions of responsibility. GBMI instructions substantially reduced the probability of NGRI and guilty verdicts in response to vignettes portraying highly psychotic defendants and altered the pattern of variability in responsibility construal ratings. Variation in delusional content cues (self-defense versus non-self-defense) influenced ratings of criminal appreciation but did not affect the verdict distributions. Less planfully commited crimes resulted in higher proportions of insanity verdicts. However, individual differences in responsibility construals of the defendant and in attitudes toward the insanity defense were stronger predictors of verdicts than the design variables, suggesting that individual differences in social-moral cognition are at least as relevant to the attribution of responsibility as are case cues or legal frames of reference. Contrary to previous studies,Witherspoon death penalty attitudes were not related to verdicts, but people without conscientious scruples toward the death penalty were more likely to render guilty verdicts.     

CHILDREN'S RIGHTS IN EUROPEAN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS: WHY ARE FAMILY PRACTICES SO DIFFERENT FROM LEGAL THEORIES?

Debates about child custody following parental separation often have been framed in terms of a battle between the competing rights of different family members. In the United States, advocates of mothers’ rights square off against proponents of fathers’ rights, with each side claiming to truly represent children's rights. Of course, not all advocates lay claim to children's rights in contact and custody disputes merely as a tactical maneuver. Some experts believe that children are entitled to (and benefit from) their own, independent legal advocate in custody cases. In theory, at least, the position that children lay claim to a third set of independent rights is strongly held in Europe, more strongly than in many U.S. states, because of the adoption of United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in Europe, but not in the United States. In this article, we examine children's rights in custody disputes from a European perspective, particularly children's legal right to contact with their parents, as well as the children's right to be heard in custody and contact disputes. We find that, despite differences in legal theory, tradition, and family demographics, European countries ultimately face a familiar reality: Custody and contact disputes are, in reality, more about renegotiating family relationships than they are a matter of a mother's, father's, or child's rights.     

The psychiatrist's guide to right and wrong: judicial standards of wrongfulness since M'Naghten

In insanity defense litigation, the precise legal definition of wrongfulness is often critically important. References in the M'Naghten Rules to the appropriate standard of wrongfulness were ambiguous, resulting in a divergence of judicial opinion as to whether wrongfulness means legal wrong, subjective moral wrong, or objective moral wrong. This article reviews and analyzes these three judicial standards of wrongfulness in the context of case law from jurisdictions that follow each of the respective standards. The evolution of knowledge of right and wrong tests of criminal responsibility is traced back to its philosophical roots. Most psychiatrists claim no expertise in matters of morality or law. The American Psychiatric Association would bar psychiatric expert testimony on the ultimate issue of insanity, on the grounds that there are "impermissible leaps in logic" when psychiatrists opine on the probable relationship between medical concepts and moral-legal constructs. Whether or not they testify on the ultimate issue, psychiatrists should ascertain the applicable standard of wrongfulness in order to properly relate their findings to the relevant legal criteria for insanity and thereby enhance the probative value of their testimony.