6.7 Chapter Summary
- The presence of a mental disorder in a person charged with a criminal offense can impact that person’s course through the justice system in a number of ways, depending upon the degree to which the mental disorder has impaired the person at the time of the criminal conduct, and later when the case is proceeding in the courts.
- If a mental disorder impairs a person’s ability to participate in their own defense, or “aid and assist” their attorney, they may be deemed not competent to be tried. In this situation, the criminal case must pause. The case may proceed if and when competence is restored. Legal standards for competence and procedures for resolving competence issues vary by state and in the federal system, but at a minimum they must comply with the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
- A mental disorder may, in very limited circumstances, provide a defense to criminal conduct: the insanity defense. This excuse defense appears in different versions in the states and the federal system, using one or more of four basic formulations: M’Naghten, Irresistible Impulse, Durham, and MPC. Some states do not recognize this defense at all.
- The insanity defense is rarely asserted by defendants, and it is even more rarely successful. The defense is difficult to prove in that it is complex, it places a heavy burden on defendants, and it is socially unpopular. There are racial discrepancies in outcomes related to the defense, suggesting that, like most criminal justice outcomes, its use is impacted by systemic racism.
- Mental disorders can impact sentencing options. The death penalty cannot be imposed on a person who is legally insane, though a person can be treated to become competent to be executed.
Key Term Definitions
- Affirmative defense: A type of defense requiring production of evidence by the defendant, rather than the state. Examples include the defenses of self-defense or insanity.
- Aid and assist: Another term for competence to stand trial. A person’s ability to work with (or “aid and assist”) their defense attorney is a key element of competence to proceed in a criminal case.
- Competency evaluation: An assessment that considers a person’s mental capability in light of the legal standard for competence in their jurisdiction and then offers a professional opinion as to whether the person is legally competent.
- Competence: The ability of a criminal defendant to adequately participate in their own defense under the applicable legal standards.
- Due process: The idea of guaranteed fair treatment within the legal system based on established procedures.
- Durham rule: A formulation of the insanity defense eliminating criminal responsibility where a person’s wrong act was the “product” of a mental disorder.
- Dusky standard: The federal legal standard for competence to stand trial, requiring that an accused person must have a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings and an ability to reasonably consult with their lawyer about the case.
- Excuse defense: A defense asserted by a criminally accused person stating that the accused person has done something wrong but bears no criminal responsibility due to the circumstances of their action. Examples are duress (the person was forced to do something wrong) or insanity (the conduct was attributable to a mental disorder resulting in legal insanity).
- Guilty except for insanity (GEI): The terminology used in Oregon for a person who has successfully asserted the insanity defense and been excused from criminal responsibility. Other states use varying terms, often “not guilty by reason of insanity” or NGRI.
- Insanity defense: A defense asserted by a criminally accused person stating that they should be excused from criminal responsibility for their conduct due to their state of legal insanity at the time of the conduct.
- Irresistible impulse test: A formulation of the insanity defense eliminating criminal responsibility where a person’s mental disorder prevented them from controlling their behavior or compelled them to do the bad act.
- Justification defense: A defense asserted by a criminally accused person stating that the accused person’s conduct was not wrong, or criminal, because their behavior was warranted, or justified, by the circumstances. An example is self-defense.
- Legal standard: A law created by statute or a court decision that guides decisions and creates consistency in the legal system. For example, the legal standard of proof in criminal cases is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and the legal standard for competency was established in the Dusky case.
- Mitigation: Explaining a defendant’s conduct in a way that does not excuse but may soften judgment of the conduct, thereby providing a reason for a judge or jury to impose a reduced sentence. Facts in explanation might be considered mitigating factors or circumstances.
- Model Penal Code (MPC): An example criminal code developed by experts to provide states with standard language on which to base their statutes. Many states have adapted MPC language for use in their state codes.
- M’Naghten rule: A formulation of the insanity defense eliminating criminal responsibility where a person, due to a mental disorder, did not know the difference between right and wrong in the context of their behavior.
- Non-qualifying mental disorder: Diagnoses that, while potentially very impactful, do not make a person eligible for the insanity defense under state law, generally because they are diagnosed based on rule-breaking behaviors. Examples include sexual disorders, substance use disorders, and personality disorders.
- Qualifying mental disorder: Diagnoses that are permitted to form the basis for an insanity defense, assuming other requirements of the defense are met. This includes mood disorders, psychotic disorders, and trauma-related disorders, among others.
- Restoration of competence: Targeted treatment provided to a criminally charged person who is incompetent, or unable to aid and assist in their defense. Treatment is intended to enable the person to constitutionally proceed with resolution of their criminal case.
Discussion Questions
- Why do questions about a person’s competence, or ability to “aid and assist,” require halting the criminal process? Discuss the competing constitutional issues involved.
- What are some pros and cons of jail-based competency restoration programs? What specific problems might these solve or exacerbate?
- Think of examples—from real life or your imagination—where each of the four versions of the insanity defense would apply, and consider which versions would not apply to your examples. Which version do you believe is most likely to result in just outcomes?
- How might factors such as race, gender, sexuality, culture and language, socioeconomic status, and additional disabilities—or other factors—impact a defendant’s ability to assert and succeed in presenting an insanity defense? How can the criminal justice system provide more equitable access to this defense?
Knowledge Check
Use these optional questions to check your knowledge after reading this chapter.
Licenses and Attributions for Chapter Summary
“Chapter Summary” by Anne Nichol is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
