Thank you for making this a bit clearer for me.
Regarding the sentence I bolded - but could a legally insane person still understand that they will end up in prison if found out and therefore hide the crime - not because they feel guilt and understand that it was wrong what they did?
The insanity defense is tricky, because each state has its own variation on how it works. As
Skigirl mentioned, many states use a test which states that the defendant - a
t the time of the offense - must not understand right from wrong, or does not understand the quality of his actions (this is the
M'Naughten test). Massachusetts, however, uses the
Model Penal Code definition for the insanity defense, which states a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Although this sounds similar to the
M'Naughten test, there are some key differences, and that affects the answer to your question.
The
Model Penal Code defense is, on paper, easier to achieve for a defendant than the
M'Naughten test, as it accepts a broader range of mental issues. I can see why Chism's attorneys are pursuing this, because I can see the argument that his mental issues keep him from having the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. To be clear, I don't think they will succeed. There are certain mental issues that could cause a person to hide what they have done for reasons that have nothing to do with appreciating the wrongfulness of their actions, such as some sort of paranoid break with reality. A person could also later in time hide the evidence of what they have done when their psychotic moment has passed and still be considered not guilty by reason of insanity if it can be proven than they had no perception of the wrongfulness of their conduct during that act. Usually, in this sort of instance, there has to be a longer gap in time for it to be believed by the jury.
So, bringing it back to Chism. In his case, the defense is going to argue that, because of whatever mental health issue Chism has been diagnosed with, he lacks the capacity to understand what he's doing is wrong or is unable to control himself to comply with the law. That's a high bar to clear, and it's likely to fail because so much of what he has done is on video and looks to be premeditation. Further, his actions to cover up the crime are too close in time to the murder, and so they aren't going to be able to make a successful argument that some sort of psychosis had passed.
tl; dr - in rare cases, covering up a crime does not preclude an insanity defense, but it's not going to fly in this one. :twocents:
ullhair:
