The Effects of the Guilty but Mentally Ill verdict on the outcome of a jury trial

The Effects of the Guilty but Mentally Ill verdict on the outcome of a jury trial Michael Eagan

Overview • What is the Insanity Defense • Discuss the history and evolution of the insanity defense • The Guilty But Mentally Ill verdict • Current state of the Insanity Defense • Does the Guilty but Mentally Ill verdict effect the outcome of a trial

The Insanity Defense • Claim that a mental disorder caused the accused to commit the crime • Affirmative defense • If proven true It will defeat prosecutions allegations even if claim is true Does this by Negating the Elements of a crime • Today federal law places the additional burden of proving insanity by “clear and convincing evidence” (18 U.S.C. § 17)

History of the Insanity Defense • Pre-McNaughton • Roman Law • Non-Compos Mentis • Latin for “without mastery of mind” • Mens rea • Three Phases • “Good and Evil test” • “Wild beast test” • “Right and wrong test”

Good and Evil Test • First appeared in England cases around 1313 • Origins • Biblical and Religious concepts • Insane thought of as children • Incapable of “sinning” because they could not distinguish “good from the evil” • Not guilty • Defendant would not have known the difference between good and evil at the time of the crime • In use 14th–16th centuries • Replace by the “wild beast test” in 1724

Wild Beast Test • English case • 1724 • Rex v. Arnold • Defendant accused of shooting and trying to kill a British lord • The trial judge acquitted the defendant finding him • “a man totally deprived of his understanding and memory, and doth not know what he is doing, no more than a brute, or a wild beast, such a one is never the object of punishment.”

Wild Beast Test • Wild Beast test misnomer • Not wild beast that comes to mind today • Judges comments where read out of context and mistranslated from Latin • Brutis = Brute • “Wild beast” = farm animals like foxes, deer, and rabbits (1724, England) • the intellectual ability of a farm animal • Changed the insanity defense • from moral failing (i.e. good versus evil) to a cognitive failing

Right and Wrong Test • England 1840 • Regina v. Oxford • precursor to the McNaughton rule • Lord Denman instructed the jury to acquit the defendant by reason of insanity if he was found to suffer • “from the effect of a disease mind” • if he was “quite unaware of the nature, character, and consequences of the act he was committing” (right from wrong)

McNaughton (M’Naghten) Rule • English case, 1843 • Daniel McNaughton was a woodcutter from Scotland • Thought government was trying to kill him • Prime Minister Robert Peel was persecuting him • Unsuccessful • Peel was riding with Queen Victoria in her carriage • Killed Prime Minister’s Secretary, Edward Drummond

McNaughton Rule • Early English Common law views emphasized • defendant’s ability to know the difference between moral good and evil or, • defendant’s knowledge of the nature of their act (i.e. right from wrong) • McNaughton Rule tried to combine both of these views • nine medical experts testified McNaughton was insane • jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). • Spent rest of live in Broadmoor insane asylum

McNaughton Rule • McNaughton verdict incensed Queen Victoria and caused public outcry • Queen Victoria commanded the House of Lords to pass new laws to protect the public from “the wrath of madmen who could now kill with impunity.” • Their high court came up with the McNaughton Rule, which has three parts.

McNaughton Rule • The presumption that the defendant is sane and responsible for their criminal acts • defendant must have been suffering “under a defect of reason” or “from disease of the mind.” to be found not guilty • defendant must “not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong”.

McNaughton Rule • Criticisms • More then one way to form an acceptable defense • Show lack of mens rea • wrongfulness aspect of this rule • Most insanity statues mention some form of wrongfulness test • Solutions • simply asking if the defendant knew that the action was wrong or by telling the jury that the defendant must have had the capacity to understand the nature of the act. • Other jurisdictions have just left it up to the jury to decide what the terms of the McNaughton Rule mean

Irresistible Impulse Test • Professionals criticize the wrongfulness component of the McNaughton Rule saying that cognition is only one part • The McNaughton rule makes no provision for the degrees of insanity. • Under the McNaughton rule the person either knows what they are doing, and/or knows that the act is wrong to be found sane. • In the 1920’s many states attempted to solve these problems by modifying their McNaughton rules to allow for “irresistible impulse” defenses. • Because At the time, it was widely believed that some forms of behavior where beyond the controlled of certain individuals

Irresistible Impulse test • To be found not guilty by reason of insanity • “his reasoning powers were so far dethroned by his diseased mental condition as to deprive him of willpower to resist the insane impulse to perpetrate the deed, though knowing it to be wrong” Smith v. United States, 1929

Irresistible Impulse Test • “policeman at the elbow” test. • The jurors are told that “if the accused would not have committed that act had there been a policeman present, he cannot be said to have acted under irresistible impulse”

Irresistible Impulse Test • Test did not last long • Too hard to tell when an impulse was irresistible and when it was not due too the subjectivity of each individual juror. • impossible to know if a person cannot control their behavior in specific situations and that the uncontrollable impulse test can be used as an excuse by anybody who has committed a crime.

Durham Rule(Product Rule) • Court decided that the legal tests for insanity where either obsolete or flawed. • “An accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.” • Problems • Out of touch with medical reality • Doctors had a hard time describing insanity as the court did • Most lawyers and judges felt this test gave to much power to medical professionals

United States v. Brawner • In 1972 the court which created the Durham Rule rejected it • “prevailing community standards” approach • defined insanity in terms of social justice, instead of the more commonly used legal and psychiatric definitions. • Because of this, it was not adopted not well received and quickly fell out of favor. • Brawner decision helped lead to the adoption of the ALI test

ALI TestSubstantial Capacity Test • In 1955 • Response to the dissatisfaction with all of these insanity standards • The American Law Institute (ALI) created the substantial capacity test and incorporated it into the Model Penal Code • “A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law”

ALI Test • Test tries to combine McNaughton Rule with the irresistible impulse test • First Prong • McNaughton cognitive component • Second Prong • irresistible impulse test • Very well received • Used by 26 states and the federal government

Guilty But Mentally Ill • Hinckley Case was main force behind Guilty but Mentally ill statues • dropped out of Texas Tech University in 1976 • Moved to Hollywood to make it big in the music industry • While in California, he became infatuated with the movie Taxi Driver and its star Jodie Foster

Guilty But Mentally Ill • Hinckley was delusional and tried to recreate a scene from the Taxi Driver to win Jodie Foster’s love • To do this he decided to attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan • Jurors used the ALI test of Model Penal Code which was in use by the federal government at that tine

GBMI • Jurors where told to return a “not guilty” unless they could agree “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Hinckley was sane • Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity • Is now serving a life sentence in a mental health institution

GBMI • Public was Outrage • Over ½ of the states returned to McNaughton like standards • Before this most states followed the ALI test of the model Penal code • Some states even abolished the insanity defense altogether • In 1984 congress passed the Crime Control and Prevention Act which included the Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA) of 1984.

GBMI • Crime Control and Prevention Act • Affirmative defense • Shifted burden of proof onto defendant by proving their case by “clear and convincing” evidence • IDRA, instituted a civil commitment process • If defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity they are held in custody until a court hearing on their state of mind can be held (usually with in forty days of the verdict)

GBMI • second outcome of the Hinckley verdict was the creation of the Guilty but Mentally Ill (GBMI) verdict • Guilty but mentally ill gives four possible verdicts • Guilty • Not guilty • Not guilty by reason of insanity • Guilty but Mentally Ill

GBMI • Guilty but mentally ill • corpus delicti of the crime has been meet beyond a reasonable doubt. • The defendant was mentally ill at the time the crime occurred. • the defendant is not found to be legally insane at the time the crime was committed.

GBMI • The verdict of guilty but mentally ill is reached if the defendant satisfies the ALI’s standards of substantial capacity and wrongfulness. • For the defendant to be found legally insane only the McNaughton standard of knowing right from wrong is used. • The McNaughton rule is harder to satisfy then the ALI test for mental illness it is more likely that a defendant would be found guilty but mentally ill instead of mentally insane

GBMI • The finding of GBMI is equivalent to that of “guilty” verdict • The defendant is sentenced the same as other people • After sentencing • Evaluated to see if they require psychiatric treatment and/or hospitalization • If the defendant is later “cured” sent to a regular prison facility • time spent in the hospital and correctional facility count towards their sentence completion • When the offender sentence is served the offender will then be released even if they still suffer from a mental illness

Effects of the GBMI verdict • The GBMI verdict original intent was to reduce the number of acquittals by reason of insanity • verdict was also felt to guarantee the treatment of the offenders who needed it.

Analysis • Most of the research has suggested that it cannot be determined with any reasonable amount of certainty that the GBMI verdict has an impact on the outcome of a trial • However, common sense and anecdotal evidence suggests that the Guilty but Mentally Ill verdict (GBMI) has some impact on the verdict albeit a very small one.

Analysis • Almost all the research agrees that goal of treating the offender has rarely been meet. • The GBMI verdict has succeeded in reducing the numbers of acquittals due to insanity pleas. • But when this occurred it was usually to the determent of the defendant • This is because when the GBMI verdict changed the outcome of the trial it usually does so in the favor of the guilty plea.

State and federal laws • Currently 26 states and the federal government use the McNaughton Rule • 20 states and D.C. uses the ALI test • Three states did not specify what they use • Montana does not use the insanity defense • Only three states use the GBMI verdict • Texas uses the McNaughton rule and the irresistible impulse test; they do not employ the GBMI verdict

The Effects of the Guilty but Mentally Ill verdict on the outcome of a jury trial