6.1 Chapter Overview
6.1.1 Learning Objectives
The following learning objectives tell you what’s most important in this chapter. Use these statements as a study guide to make sure you get the most out of this chapter.
- Explain the competence requirement and the insanity defense, describing the differences between the two.
- Describe the conditions and standards that must be met for a person who is criminally accused to be competent to stand trial.
- Analyze the insanity defense, considering variations of the defense and limitations on its use and success.
- Discuss the role of mental disorders in sentencing criminal offenders.
6.1.2 Key Terms
Look for these important terms in the text in bold. Understanding these terms will help you meet the learning objectives of this chapter. You can find the complete definitions for these terms at the end of the chapter.
- Affirmative defense
- Aid and assist
- Competence evaluation
- Competency
- Due process
- Durham rule
- Dusky standard
- Excuse defense
- Guilty except for insanity (GEI)
- Insanity defense
- Irresistible impulse test
- Justification defense
- Legal standard
- Mitigation
- Model Penal Code (MPC)
- M’Naghten Rule
- Non-qualifying mental disorder
- Qualifying mental disorder
- Restoration
When a person is accused of a serious criminal offense, they will likely face charges within the criminal courts, regardless of the presence of a mental disorder. However, this accused person’s path through the criminal court system may become more complex if they have – or previously had – an active mental disorder impacting their decision-making capacity or behavior.
The forward movement and eventual outcome of the person’s criminal case will depend on the degree and the timing of their mental impairment. For example, if the accused person was very impacted by a mental disorder (perhaps experiencing severe paranoia) at the time the crime occurred, that may provide the accused with a defense to the crime. Or, if the person is seriously impaired by a mental disorder at the start of court proceedings, they may be unable to properly participate in their own courtroom defense, preventing the case from proceeding. A particular case can involve either one of, or both of, these complications.
On the other hand, if the person simply has a diagnosis of a mental disorder, even a serious one, but the impacts are not significant enough or do not coincide with critical times in the criminal case, the existence of that mental disorder may not change the outcome of the case at all. Indeed, most people with mental disorders do not commit crimes, and most people who commit crimes do not do so because of mental disorders. In this chapter, you will learn how and why a person’s mental disorder may impact the operation of the criminal courts and the experience of that person within the court system.
6.1.3 Chapter Overview Licenses and Attributions
“Chapter Overview” by Anne Nichol is licensed under CC BY 4.0.