A person who is found to be mentally incompetent to stand trial is usually hospitalized for treatment until such time that the person is competent to stand trial. Distinction Between the Insanity Defense and Competency to Stand TrialĪll jurisdictions require that criminal defendants must be competent to stand trial, meaning that defendants understand the nature of the proceedings against them and are able to assist counsel in their defense. Also, several states changed the burden of proof for release from the state to defendants. United States, the Supreme Court in 1983 backed this proposition, ruling that the sentence that criminal defendants would have received had they been convicted should have no bearing on how long they could be committed to a mental hospital.Īfter Hinckley, many states changed their commitment policies to ensure that a defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity would be required to stay in a mental hospital for a certain period of time for evaluation following acquittal. They are generally committed to mental hospitals where they can be confined for longer than their prison terms would have been. Commitment and Release ProceduresĬontrary to popular misconceptions, defendants who use an insanity defense and are found not guilty by reason of insanity are not simply released from custody. Throughout history, the standards surrounding the insanity defense, particularly after the John Hinckley verdict, which allowed President Ronald Reagan's attempted assassin to go to a psychiatric hospital rather than prison, have tightened dramatically. This is true even though the person actually committed the crime or, in legal terminology, is " culpable" of the crime. Under some circumstances, if a mentally ill defendant is found " not guilty by reason of insanity," it excuses that person from the legal responsibility for his or her criminal behavior. Insanity Defense: Backgroundįrom as early on as the 12th century, the use of an insanity defense has essentially been a legal shield for persons suffering from mental illness. In states where the burden is still on prosecutors to prove sanity, they are required to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. In states where the burden is on the defense to prove insanity, the defense is required to show either by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is insane. After the Hinckley verdict, the vast majority of states required the defense to prove that the defendant was indeed insane. Before the Hinckley verdict, a majority of states placed the burden of proof with the state that is, the prosecutor had to prove that the defendant was not insane. The question of who has the burden of proof with an insanity defense has been a source of controversy. This article discusses the current application of the insanity defense and the various requirements that the courts use when a defendant claims to be innocent by reason of insanity. Courts have struggled with developing a balance to protect the mentally ill, while protecting the public from those who would abuse the system. While there's a desire to shield the mentally ill from the full brunt of the legal system, there are also concerns about false claims of mental illness used to manipulate the criminal justice system. The insanity defense has long been recognized as a legal defense to the commission of a crime.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |