《Insanity, MSO, and Related Issues》.PPTVIP

Insanity, MSO, and Related Issues Russell M. Bauer, Ph.D. July 24, 2008 Mental State at Offense One of the most difficult and bloodcurdling tasks of a forensic psychologist it is RETROSPECTIVE MOTIVATIONAL factors affect current presentation Requires “investigative reconstruction” of crime events, often involving information psychologists are not used to reviewing History of Insanity Defense Basic Concept: free will Mc’Naghten Case (1840’s) – emphasizes cognitive understanding “Irresistable Impulse” rule – volitional control standard Durham vs. United States: “product” of mental disease or defect (1954); also known as the “but for” test American Law Institute Model Penal Code: cognition (appreciation) vs. volition (control) 1984 Congress: wrongfulness appreciation VERY rare defense (l%, and of that, rarely successful) Pre-M’Naghten 13th century: “man? must be totally deprived of his understanding and memory so as not to know what he is doing, no more than an infant, brute or a wild beast” (Melton, 1997, p. 190). M’Naghten 1843: murder of Prime Minister’s assistant M’Naghten acquitted based on mental disorder House of Lords later ruled: “To establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act that he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong” M’Naghten committed to Bedlam, eventually died in another hospital after decades of “treatment” Example Defendant bites another person because he believes him to be a piece of chicken (crime: battery) Could prove insanity under Prong 1 Defendant bites another person, knowing him to be a person, but not knowing that biting is painful and can injure the other person Could prove insanity under Prong 2 American Law Institute (ALI, 1955) A person is not responsible for criminal conduct