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.
- 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 go forward. 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 Constitution, as interpreted by the courts.
- 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. 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 its use 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.
6.7.1 Key Terms
- Affirmative defense: A type of defense requiring a basis of facts produced by the defendant, rather than the state, which makes these defenses more difficult to assert. Examples include the defenses of self-defense or insanity.
- Aid and assist: Another term for competence to stand trial, used interchangeably with “competency.” 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 practically, legally, and constitutionally participate in their own defense, under the standards set by federal and state law.
- 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. The Durham rule applies as law only in New Hampshire.
- Dusky standard: the federal legal standard for competency to stand trial, requiring that an accused person must have a meaningful understanding of their criminal situation, and an ability to act on that understanding.
- 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 person was impacted by a mental disorder causing the behavior).
- 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 (NGRI).”
- Insanity defense: a defense asserted by a criminally accused person, stating that they should be excused from criminal responsibility due to their state of legal insanity, as defined by state law, 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. The classic example is self-defense: the accused person was being attacked, and they killed the alleged victim (the attacker) in order to save their own life.
- Legal standard: a law, created by statute or a higher court decision, that guides court proceedings 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.
- Model Penal Code (MPC): a set of model criminal statutes that was developed by a panel of experts in the 1960s to increase uniformity among the states’ criminal codes. This standard language defining crimes and other elements of criminal law replaced the common law in many jurisdictions, and has been adapted by individual states to meet their needs.
- 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 mental disorders such as schizophrenia.
- Restoration: Targeted treatment provided to a criminally charged person who has been found incompetent to stand trial, intended to bring the person into compliance with the Dusky standard (or other local standard) so that they may constitutionally proceed with resolution of their criminal case.
6.7.2 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 do you like, or dislike, about the growing popularity of jail-based competency restoration programs? Would you like to see these in your jurisdiction? What problems might these solve, or exacerbate?
- Think of examples – from real life or 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 in line with justice?
- How do factors such as race, gender, sexuality, culture and language, socioeconomic status, additional disabilities – or other factors – impact a defendant’s ability to assert and succeed in presenting an insanity defense? How might the criminal justice system provide more equitable access to this defense?