Upgrade to remove ads
PSY 480 Ch. 9
Terms in this set (25)
Refers to state of mind at time of crime
Remains most controversial area intersecting psychology and law
May not mean mental illness
Andrea Yates trial
Guilty verdict in first trial; second trial ordered due to faulty expert witness testimony
Not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) verdict in second trial: postpartum depression
Built on principle that people who commit crimes without full awareness should not be held fully awareness for their actions (cannot differentiate between right and wrong)
Retribution or just deserts perspective
Suggests punishment should be proportionate to harm committed
Built on principle that punishment should be used to learn consequences of crimes
People without mastery of mind should not be punished for crime
Modern form is "mens rea" or guilty mind
14th-16th Century England
Religiously inspired good from evil test
Rev v. Arnold and wild beast test of insanity
M'Naughten (England, 1843)
Allowed to plead Not guilty by reason of insanity
Cognitive test of insanity imported into American law
Revised in some states: irresistible impulse and volitional capacity added
Clarified further by policeman at the elbow test
Durham case (Durham v. United States, 1954)
-Guilty verdict overturned on appeal; prevailing insanity found obsolete
-New trial used the product test (Durham standard)
-Removed from DC courts (United States v. Brawner, 1972)
-Revised standard proposed: American Law Institute (ALI) Revision
Irresistible impulse-like volitional test
Hinckley case (U.S. v. Hinckley, 1982)
First examples of neurolaw expert testimony
Burden of proof placed on prosecution
(HOT TOPIC)- Brain scans as evidence
-Since Hinckley, over 2,000 cases using neuroevidence in trials since 2004.
-Little research exists about effect on juror decision-making.
-Neuroscience offers deterministic view of behavior at odds with legal assumption of free will.
-Specific brain abnormalities not sufficiently linked to criminal behavior to answer necessary legal questions.
Common Identity Defense Misconceptions #1
Insanity defense overused.
Used in less than 1% of all felony cases
Less than one-third involves victim death
Fails in 75% cases
Common Identity Defense Misconceptions #2
Insanity defense is low-risk strategy used to avoid guilt and gain lighter sentence.
NGRI defendants spend slightly longer time in custody than those who do not use defense.
1984 Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA)
Burden of proof placed on defense (affirmative defense)
Experts barred from ultimate issue testimony or weight of testimony assigned to jury
Alternative to NGRI
Guilty but mentally ill (GBMI)
Usually additional alternative verdict to guilty, not guilty, and NGRI
Permitted in 20 states
Mens rea defenses
Pleading diminished capacity if capacity or the mens rea for certain crimes is lacking
(Mens rea and insanity defense can be used together)
Clark v. Arizona (2006)
Expert testimony prohibited on mens rea component of criminal responsibility for mentally ill defendant
LEGAL SPOTLIGHT- Is an insanity test constitutionally required (Delling v. Idaho, 2013)
-Guilty verdict and life in prison sentence in first trial
-Appeal argued cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment) and due process (Fourteenth Amendment)
U.S. Supreme Court denied cert leaving Idaho prohibition against insanity defense in effect: three dissenting justices
Jurors and the Insanity Defense
Jurors translate formal into understandable language.
Jurors use preexisting commonsense notions of insanity.
Jurors are not constrained by legal definition.
Jurors are not constrained by legal instructions.
Early studies found ____ forensic evaluator agreement, however, Re-examination found substantially lower agreement rates at ______
76% ; 55%
Forensic evaluators __________ most frequently
(Defendant under influence when crime committe
Judges more concerned about finding a sane person insane
Judges more concerned about finding a _____ person ________.
sane ; insane
Characteristics of NGRI defendants
No previous violent crime
No prior history of criminal offenses
History of hospitalization for severe mental illness
Techniques for Assessing Insanity
* No gold standard for determining insanity is available.
-Retrospective evaluation is difficult.
-Elements of insanity are nebulous.
-States use different insanity standards.
-Public/juror perception of insanity is nebulous.
Tests used to assess insanity:
-Mental State at Time of Offense Screening Inventory (MSE)
-Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R-CRAS)
-Successful malingering does not lead to release.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...
The Insanity Defense
Chapter 9: The Insanity Defense
CMI Chapter 9
OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR
CH. 6 Sex & SexualitySexual Scripts
CH. 5 Intimacy, Friendship, and Love
Anxiety Disorders-PSY 381
PSY 480 Exam 2 Ch. 7 & 8