How does the not guily by insanity work in NY?
I know some states it just means that the defendent doesn't get a prison term but rather goes into a locked down hospital that deals with criminal psychiatry (can't think of the proper name for that at this moment for some reason). Anyone know offhand? TIA
Today we will learn whether Levi Aron is “fit to stand trial”.
The results of Levi Aron’s mental evaluation is faxed to the Presiding Judge, members of Aron Levi’s defense team and prosecution immediately after the psychiatrist determines whether LA is "fit to stand trial" based on the results of his psych evaluation that was completed last week so they already know before they arrive at the Court House on Thursday whether LA is “fit to stand trial”.
While an accused deemed not criminally responsible due to mental disease has been found to have committed the act that formed the basis of the offence for which he or she has been charged, it is also possible that an accused is not able to participate in his or her full answer and defence on account of mental disorder. In such cases, it is considered inconsistent with the principles of fundamental justice to determine if he or she has actually committed the offence in question through a trial.
Section 2 of the Criminal Code defines an accused as unfit to stand trial if he or she is:
- unable on account of mental disorder to conduct a defence at any stage of the proceedings before a verdict is rendered or to instruct counsel to do so, and in particular, unable on account of mental disorder to:
- understand the nature or object of proceedings;
- understand the possible consequences of the proceedings; or
- communicate with counsel.[7]
The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 created a special verdict of "not guilty only by reason of insanity," which triggers a commitment proceeding.
Therefore, should LA be found “unfit to stand trial”, I believe he will be committed to a mental hospital for treatment. If over time, Aron responds to treatment and regains his sanity, he will then be "fit to stand trial" unless the charges are stayed or withdrawn beforehand.
After the Hinckley verdict, there was an immediate public outcry against what many perceived to be a loophole in the justice system that allowed an obviously guilty man to escape punishment. There were widespread calls for the abolishment, or at least the substantial revision, of the insanity-plea laws. In response to the verdict more than 30 states changed their laws to make it more difficult for defendants to succeed in an insanity defense, and Congress passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act, which tightened federal standards. Five states abolished the insanity defense but not New York who use the M'Naghten Rule (modified), burden of proof on defendant.
Aron’s former legal counsellor said Aron has a diminished capacity and in the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, the defense of “diminished capacity” was eliminated. The definition of insanity states a person of diminished capacity is not necessarily insane.
The Insanity Defense Reform Act placed the burden of proof on the defendant to establish the defense by clear and convincing evidence. LA’s lawyers said Aron has heard voices for quite some time and hallucinates so it seems they intend to prove LA has been mentally ill for “a long time’ whereas in my opinion, I think LA was temporarily insane when he murdered Leiby and the kidnapping charges are questionable since Leiby approached Aron and Aron wasn’t out in the community looking to kidnap a child. LK was held against his will when Aron formed the intent to kill him when he returned home from work on Tuesday IMO.
634
Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984
The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, signed into law on October 12, 1984, was the first comprehensive Federal legislation governing the insanity defense and the disposition of individuals suffering from a mental disease or defect who are involved in the criminal justice system. The more significant provisions:
1. significantly modified the standard for insanity previously applied in the Federal courts;
2. placed the burden of proof on the defendant to establish the defense by clear and convincing evidence;
3. limited the scope of expert testimony on ultimate legal issues;
4. eliminated the defense of diminished capacity;
5. created a special verdict of "not guilty only by reason of insanity," which triggers a commitment proceeding; and
6. provided for Federal commitment of persons who become insane after having been found guilty or while serving a Federal prison sentence.
NEW YORK: M'Naghten Rule (modified), burden of proof on defendant
M'NAGHTEN RULE:
The M'Naghten rule states: "Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and . . . that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party ACCUSED was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong. "
The test to determine if defendants can distinguish right from wrong is based on the idea that they must know the difference in order to be convicted of a crime. Determining defendants' ability to do so may seem straightforward enough, but in practice in cases in which the M'Naghten standard is used dilemmas often arise. One of these is what constitutes the defendants' "knowledge." Some questions concern defendants' knowledge that their criminal acts are wrong and their knowledge that laws exist which prohibit these acts.
Criticism of the M'Naghten test focuses on the test's concentration on defendants' cognitive abilities. Then, too, questions occur about how to treat defendants who know their acts are against the law but who cannot control their impulses to commit them. Similarly, the courts need to determine how to evaluate and assign responsibility for emotional factors and compulsion. Finally, because of the rule's inflexible cognitive standard, it tends to be very difficult for defendants to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Despite these complications, M'Naghten survives and is currently the rule in a majority of states in regard to the insanity defense (sometimes combined with the irresistible impulse test, discussed below).
The Irresistible Impulse Test
In response to criticisms of M'Naghten, some legal commentators began to suggest expanding the definition of insanity to include more than a cognitive element. Such a test would encompass not only whether defendants know right from wrong but also whether they could control their impulses to commit wrong-doing. The irresistible impulse test was first adopted by the Alabama Supreme Court in the 1887 case of Parsons v. State. The Alabama Court stated that even though the defendant could tell right from wrong, he was subject to "the DURESS of such mental disease [that] he had... lost the power to choose between right and wrong" and that "his free agency was at the time destroyed," and thus, "the alleged crime was so connected with such mental disease, in the relation of cause and effect, as to have been the product of it solely." In so finding, the court assigned responsibility for the crime to the mental illness despite the defendant's ability to distinguish right from wrong.
The irresistible impulse test gained acceptance in various states as an appendage to M'Naghten, whose test of right versus wrong was still considered a vital part of any definition of insanity. In some cases, irresistible impulse was considered a variation on M'Naghten; in others it was considered a separate test. Though the Irresistible Impulse test was considered an important corrective on M'Naghten's cognitive BIAS, it still came under some criticism of its own. For example, it seemed to make the definition of insanity too broad, failing to take into account the impossibility of determining which acts were uncontrollable rather than merely uncontrolled, and also making it easier to fake insanity. The test was also criticized as being too narrow: like M'Naghten, the test seemed to exclude all but those totally unable to control their actions. Nevertheless, several states currently use this test along with the M'Naghten rule to determine insanity, and the American Law Institute in its Model Penal Code definition of insanity adopted a modified version of it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/other.html
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00634.htm
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/2006/rr06_1/p1.html
