This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Outlines Criminal Law Outlines

Legal Insanity Excuse Outline

Updated Legal Insanity Excuse Notes

Criminal Law Outlines

Criminal Law

Approximately 94 pages

Criminal Law with Professor Rachel Barkow at NYU School of Law.

This is a synthesis of all topics in a fall 2019 class, Criminal Law at NYU School of Law. My notes consist of the important elements of each doctrine, the unsettled areas, and policy justifications....

Available here

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Criminal Law Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Legal Insanity - excuse

  • Rarely raise and difficult to win, because need experts, jurors skeptical of this defense

  • Vs. competent (mental state at time od trial)

  • Presumption of legal sanity, but different approaches to eliminate the presumption

    • D raises as defense and P must disprove beyond reasonable doubt (show sanity - D tried to hide/lie about it/cover up - would not do this if you didn't think it was wrong)

    • Burden of proof on D

  • Why have it

    • Culpability concern: people with mental illness cannot choose behavior freely or cannot choose between right and wrong, no culpable choice

    • No deterrence effect: society cannot deter these people who cannot make culpable choices

    • Instead of punishment, alternatives more effective - rehabilitative, civil commitment

  • Result:

    • Civil commitment (long sentences, greater stigma)

      • Some automatic, some require clear and convincing evidence of mental illness/dangerousness

      • Burden on D to show he should be releases from commitment

    • OR Guilty but mentally ill > incarceration + treatment

  • Problems

    • Line drawing problem: people who meet the definition and get the excuse NO LESS CULPABLE than people who not do meet the definition but is under cultural, economic, environmental pressures that constrain their knowledge and volition just as mental diseases do

    • Application of defense problematic (privileged people get better lawyers, longer sentences, increased stigma)

    • Jurors often not told about consequences of an insanity acquittal - skeptical of giving the defense

    • Solution: expand excuse to include other types of mental states

  • Public dislike this defense

    • Mistrust of psychology (Gigante case)

    • Generally used in high profile cases (Hinkley)

    • Generally used with serious crimes (bc in other crimes, no worth it to use bc longer commitment than the potential sentences) - skews perception

M'Naghten test - dominant MPC test 4.01 Federal Test (Post Hinkley)

At time of act

Acting under a disease of the mind

Did not know the nature and quality of the act OR did not know that the act was wrong

  • Not know what he was doing (squeezing head, think squeezing lemon)

  • Not know the morality of act (thinks god told him to squeeze head)

At time of act

As a result of mental disease or defect

Lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of conduct OR lacks substantial capacity to conform conduct to the requirements of the law

  • Wrongful prong

  • Volitional prong

Changes

  • "appreciate" - can know the wrongfulness of act, but not deeply appreciate its criminality

  • Excuses more people

  • Thinks about volition - conduct due to gambling compulsion, substance abuse etc.

    • Know conduct wrong BUT cannot confirm behavior

 At time of act

as result of severe mental disease or defect

unable to appreciate the nature and quality of act or wrongfulness...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Criminal Law Outlines.

More Criminal Law Samples