Forensic exam 3

• Insanity


  State of mind at time of crime
• Mental illness ≠ insanity
• Insanity


  Legal concept (not psychological definition/concept)
• Guilt


  Requires 1) actus reus (criminal act) and 2) mens rea (guilty mind)
• Goals of punishment


  • Retribution
  • Deterrence
• Retribution


  Lex talionis – "an eye for an eye", Victim receives justice, Offender acts out of free will and understands what they are doing
• Deterrence


  Learn crime is associated with consequences, Specific deterrence: discourage specific individual from committing crime, General deterrence: discourage others from criminal activity based on potential consequences
• If person cannot understand what they did was wrong, punishment would serve no purpose and does not meet goals of retribution or deterrence
• Cannot be morally responsible for actions (did not understand actions were wrong), Cannot evaluate potential consequences
• M'Naghten Case


  1843: Daniel M'Naghten suffered from delusions and killed the Prime Minister's secretary (London), Jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI)
• M'Naghten Test


  Presume defendants are sane/responsible until proven otherwise, At time of crime, defendant was operating with "defect of reasoning…disease of the mind" (had mental illness), At time of crime, defendant didn't understand what they were doing or didn't know it was wrong
• Irresistible Impulse Test


  They have a mental illness and it caused inability to control their actions/behave according to the law (i.e., volitional capacity), Can know that what they were doing was wrong, Problems: what is "too irresistible"? = failed to resist vs. could not resist, "Policeman at the elbow" test helps define what is "irresistible"
• Durham Rule


  Mental disease/defect = not responsible for criminal acts, Mental health professional can determine if behavior caused by mental illness (product test)
• U.S. v. Brawner (1972)


  Overturned the Durham Rule because the mental health expert would have too much influence on the outcome of the trial (issue with product test), Suggested using the American Law Institute (ALI) Model Penal Code Test
• ALI Model Penal Code Test


  Have a mental defect/disease and because of mental defect/disease, one lacks "substantial capacity" to: understand right from wrong (M'Naghten) OR control behavior (irresistible impulse/volitional capacity), then they are not responsible for the criminal act (NGRI), Things that don't count as mental illness: Repeat criminal behavior, "antisocial conduct" (e.g., being intoxicated)
• John Hinckley


  1981: John Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Reagan, Tried to impress Jodie Foster, Shot four people (including president), 1982 trial - Prosecution given burden of proof to show defendant was sane beyond reasonable doubt, Mental health expert testimony paranoid schizophrenia, Found NGRI - put in psychiatric hospital, 2016 – was released (with conditions), 2022 – release with no conditions
• Insanity Defense Reform Act (1984)


  Shifted burden of proof to defense (presume sane until proven otherwise), Proof = clear and convincing evidence, Stopped using volitional capacity (able to control behavior), Experts not allowed to give ultimate issue testimony (product test), Basically a version of the M'Naghten test - due to mental disease/defect, cannot appreciate crime or understand it was wrong
• Insanity Defense Rules in the U.S.

  • Insanity Defense Reform Act (federal)
  • Modified M'Naghten rule or Model Penal Code (most states)
  • Some add irresistible impulse test
  • Some allow additional types of verdicts (e.g., guilty but mentally ill)
  • Kansas, Idaho, Montana, & Utah do not allow an insanity defense
• Insanity Defense Misconceptions


  • Hinckley's rich parents bought his verdict
  • "hired guns", expensive attorneys/experts, defense just trying to get client released
  • Mental illness = dangerousness
  • Insanity defense is used a lot
  • Those who use it are faking it
  • Used especially in violent criminal cases (i.e., dangerous criminals are going free)
• Facts about the Insanity Defense


  • 74% believe mental illness can affect rational choice, but 66% against using insanity defense
  • 1% of felony cases have used insanity defense
  • Prosecutor and defense tend to agree on its use in these cases
  • Less than 33% of insanity pleas involve a murder
  • Insanity defense is not more effective than other defense strategies
  • Defendants using insanity defense are saying they committed crime
• Characteristics of those using the insanity defense

  • Male
  • Non-violent crime
  • History of hospitalizations for mental illness
  • Psychosis, mood disorders (e.g., depression, bipolar), intellectual disability
  • Prior criminal record related to unsuccessful insanity defense
  • Malingering is RARE
• What happens when someone is found NGRI

  Using insanity defense = admitting they committed the crime, Most spend more time in custody vs. those who do not use insanity defense (similar crimes), If found NGRI - 84%-95% are hospitalized, 1%-4% unconditionally released
• Guilty but Mentally Ill (GBMI)


  Serve prison sentence consistent with crime, Required to receive mental health treatment or stay in psychiatric hospital, Does not guarantee they will actually receive treatment
• Mens rea defense


  Lack mental capacity to commit certain crimes, Prosecution has burden to prove mens rea, Could mean defendant can't be found guilty of 1st degree murder, Requires that one 1) knowingly/intentionally committed crime and 2) planned it, 2nd degree does not require this - heat of the moment
• Diminished Capacity Defense


  Different from insanity - did defendant have state of mind to act with purpose and intent, Think through consequences of action vs. know actions were wrong/control behavior, Example: What if M'Naghten knew actions were wrong, but due to mental illness could not think clearly enough when shooting the secretary?
• Dan White and the "Twinkie defense"


  Poor diet (due to stress) was indicative of his depressed state, which led to assassination of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk in 178
• Mental health examiners agree ~81% of the time when determining insanity, Judges follow recommendation of experts 91% of the time, When they do not - tend to find defendant sane
• Problems with determining insanity

  • Retrospective judgment (mental state at time of crime)
  • Insanity definition(s) vague
  • How do you quantify "substantial capacity", "severe mental disease"?
  • States vary in standard they use - hard to develop test to capture all components
• Mental State at the Time of Offense Screening Evaluation (MSE)


  Attempts to detect mental defect that could have affected behavior, Lacks standardized administration or scoring procedures
• Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R-CRAS)


  Created to capture the A.L.I. standards, Quantifies legal standards: e.g., volition, 25-items, Malingering, brain disorder present, major psychiatric disorder, loss of cognitive control, loss of behavioral control
• Evidence Strength


  • Typically the best predictor of jury verdicts
  • Stronger evidence = higher likelihood conviction
  • Things that increase evidence strength: physical evidence, confession, eye-witness identification
• Liberation hypothesis


  • In evidentiary-weak cases, jurors are "liberated" from only using evidence presented
  • They will use extra-legal factors to determine guilt
• Extra-legal factors


  • Pretrial publicity
  • Charge severity
  • Complexity of evidence/trial
  • Personal characteristics (race, sex, SES, attractiveness)
  • Prior beliefs/experiences
  • The list goes on!
• Pretrial Publicity (PTP)


  • Media coverage of a (usually high-profile) case before the trial begins
  • PTP is typically biased in favor of prosecution/against defendant
• Effects of PTP


  • Increases beliefs about a defendant's guilt
  • Increases chance of source misattribution (source memory errors)
  • Emotionally-arousing PTP is especially biasing
• Solutions to negative PTP

  1. Ask jurors to disregard PTP they may have been exposed to

  2. Provide time in-between PTP exposure and trial (example: 12-day delay)

  3. Change of venue probably a better solution
• Similarity-Leniency Hypothesis


  Jurors similar to defendant = more sympathetic (i.e., lenient), won't convict
• Black sheep effect (BSE)


  Ingroup member judged harshly when they are negatively valued
• Similarity-Leniency is not a consistent effect
• Race salience


  When racial issues are salient/apparent in a trial