Transcript Alternative Standards to Insanity

Alternative Standards to Insanity
Lauren Vazquez Sowell
July 27th, 2006
Overview
Review of the Insanity Defense
Detail Alternative Defenses
Differentiate Alternative Defenses
Examine Case Studies
Psychologists’ Role in MSO Defenses
Introduction
Defenses raised by the criminal defendant at
the guilt determination phase of the criminal
process
All require investigation of the defendant’s
‘mental state at the time of the offense’
(MSO)
State jurisdiction
Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI)
Probably the most controversial
issue in criminal law
What do we usually think of ?
Movies or Television
What does it really mean?
Individuals found NGRI are not ‘properly
punishable’ as criminals
Treatment or restraint, achieved via
hospitalization rather than imprisonment
Frequency of Use
How often is the NGRI defense used?
The general public thought 43%
Is this too low or too high of an estimate?
Actually less than 1%
How often is this defense successful?
a) ~0.25%
b) ~2.5%
c) ~25.0%
Background
All crimes consist of at least two elements
1) actus reus
2) mens rea
To convict an individual of a crime, the state must
prove that the defendant committed the actus
reus with the requisite mens rea
Determining mens rea at the time of the offense
provides a mechanism for retribution
Alternatives to NGRI
Automatism Defense
Mens Rea Testimony
Actus Reus Testimony
Affirmative Defenses
Defenses Based on Intoxication
‘Guilty but Mentally Ill’ Plea
Automatism Defense
Definition:
“Actus reus without consciousness”
e.g., While sleeping
After brain injury
After involuntary substance use
Dissociative states
Epileptic seizures
If state of unconsciousness has happened
prior to the actus reus, and if the defendant
could have taken precautions to prevent a potential criminal event.
No special commitment statutes governing those acquitted
How is it different from NGRI?
1) Insane persons generally have conscious control of their acts but do not understand
the nature of the act
2) Prosecution bears the burden of establishing actus reus and also of negating the
automatism claim beyond a reasonable doubt
3) No requirement of ‘mental disease or defect’ for this defense
Mens Rea Testimony
Definition:
“A decreased level of culpability because of lesser intent”
‘Specific Intent’ vs. ‘General Intent’
Specific intent – crimes that require further intention beyond the actus reus
(e.g., murder, aggravated assault)
General intent – crimes that only require proof that perpetrator was conscious
of the actus reus and the consequences (e.g., manslaughter, rape, battery)
4 levels of mental state:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Purpose
Knowledge
Recklessness
Negligence
How is this different from NGRI?
Actus Reus Testimony
Different from previously discussed defenses, in which the defendant
concedes that they committed the crime, but argue full or partial
nonresponsibility due to a mental disability.
With actus reus testimony, defendant uses psychological evidence (clinicians
provide character testimony) to suggest that they could not have been
physically involved in the offense
Three Scenarios:
1)
Defendant denies being the perpetrator
e.g., clinician testifies that defendant is passive and unlikely to commit act
2)
Proof of character used to show that defendant did commit the crime
(prosecution limited by defense)
e.g., clinician testifies that defendant's character is consistent with that of a
child molester
3)
Clinical evidence to show a crime did occur, and that the defendant had
the opportunity to commit the act
e.g., clinician testifies that victim meets criteria for PTSD and was raped
Affirmative Defenses
Defendants admit they voluntarily committed the crime, but
assert they are not ‘guilty’ because of some justification or
mitigating factor
Traditionally, defendant had to prove defense with evidence,
but now, the state must disprove the claim beyond a
reasonable doubt.
~Self-Defense
~Provocation
~Duress
~Entrapment
Affirmative Defenses cont’
Self-Defense: “one who is not the aggressor in an encounter is justified in
using a reasonable amount of force against his adversary when he believes
that he is in immediate danger of unlawful bodily harm and the use of such
force is necessary to avoid this danger”
Provocation: only in homicides, when the defendant can show that
(1) the killing was in reaction to provocation that would cause the
‘reasonable person’ to lose control; (2) this provocation provoked the
defendant; (3) a ‘reasonable person’ would not have cooled off between the
provocation and the final blow; (4) the defendant did not cool off
Duress: Conduct produced by an unlawful threat that causes the defendant to
have a reasonable belief that the only way to avoid imminent death or
bodily injury (to himself or another) is to engage in conduct that violates
the criminal law; acquittal only when the defendant, faced with a choice of
evils, chooses the lesser evil; not for homicide
Entrapment: Similar to duress, except that the third party inducing the crime
must be a government agent and the coercion need not be as significant
Defenses Based on Intoxication
Intoxication, by alcohol or narcotics, can form the basis for an insanity
defense, automatism defense, or a mens rea defense
Success depends on whether intoxication was ‘voluntary,’ ‘involuntary,’ or
the result of long-term addiction
Voluntary – seldom given complete exculpatory effect; insanity or
automatism can not be options; diminished capacity in the case of
specific intent crimes
Involuntary – courts much more lenient; when defendant tricked
or unknowingly ingests drugs or alcohol, or in cases of ‘pathological
intoxication’
Long-Term Addiction – chronic use of psychoactive substances; if able
to show they lacked appreciation of consequences, consciousness, and
mens rea, may be acquitted
‘Guilty but Mentally Ill’ Plea
Exists in at least 12 states
A defendant who pleads NGRI can be found:
1) not guilty
2) guilty
3) insane
4) guilty but mentally ill (GBMI)
Purpose is to provide jurors with a compromise verdict that ensures
prolonged incarceration of people who are dangerous and mentally ill,
and to reduce insanity acquittals and provide greater protection to the
public
Questionable for Two Reasons:
1) The verdict creates a significant potential for jury confusion and abuse,
given the similarity between its definition of mental illness and the
definition of insanity
2) The verdict is deficient because it is not a proper ‘verdict’ at all
Case Studies
Defendant 1
Mr. D was convicted of unlawfully entering a building with intent to
commit a crime. Mr. D lived with his parents next door to the plaintiff
(Miss V). The night of the alleged crime, Mr. D had entered Miss V's
home silently through an open door, walked into the kitchen and
grasped her from behind, putting one hand on her breast. When Miss V
screamed at him, saying, “get away from me, I'm telling your father"
Mr. D looked alarmed and said “no, please don't do that. I'm going"
and left immediately. At the trial, expert evidence was tendered showing
that, when the incident occurred, Mr. D was experiencing the
intermediate stage of an episode of neurological disorder known as
Kleine-Levin syndrome. The symptoms of this stage include an
impaired state of consciousness, full or partial memory loss and
inappropriate sexual behavior.
This was an actual case in New Zealand, during which the trial judge
excluded Mr. D's submission of automatism following the expert
witness' evidence that automatism was confined to cases of epilepsy
alone. In the United States, most courts would acquit Mr. D on the basis
of the automatism defense.
Case Studies
Defendant 2
Stacey Lannert was convicted of the first-degree murder of her father. One
night while her father was sleeping she entered his bedroom and shot him
to death. Evidence that Stacey had been subjected to her father's repeated
sexual and physical abuse was permitted along with expert testimony on
PTSD.
Because Stacey's father was asleep when she shot him, the defense could
not prove that Stacey was in any immediate physical danger, therefore the
trial court refused to instruct the jury on self-defense. The prosecution
objected to the defense bringing expert testimony on Battered Spouse
Syndrome because the case law states that such evidence can only be
admissible if the defendant lawfully acted in self-defense or defense of
another. Stacey's lawyer had not shown that Stacey's actions were based on
self-defense and the expert testimony was not permitted.
Stacey Lannert was convicted of first-degree murder and received the
mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of probation or
parole.
Case Studies
Defendant 3
On November 27, 1978, in San Francisco, Dan White climbed through a
basement window in City Hall and walked upstairs to Mayor George
Moscone's office and fatally wounded the mayor with four gunshots. White
quickly reloaded, walked down the hall to the office of Harvey Milk, and
killed him with five gunshots.
In White's trial, his defense attorneys stated that he was suffering from
“diminished capacity.” White's lawyers argued that he suffered from
depression and was therefore incapable of any premeditation. Psychiatrist
Martin Blinder testified that White was addicted to junk food and that too
much sugar could have had an effect on the brain and worsened White's
depression.
The jury found White guilty of the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter
and sentenced him to six years. In 1982, California voters approved a
proposition to abolish the “diminished capacity” defense. Dan White
served his time, was paroled in 1985, and took his own life later that year.
Discussion
What is the role of the psychologist or
neuropsychologist in MSO defenses?
Would roles change for different defenses
(e.g., insanity vs. automatism vs. self-defense)?
Would you be comfortable providing expert
testimony in such cases?
Questions?