Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    Insanity in Forensic Psy

    Uploaded by

    Ivan Ruiz

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Insanity in Forensic Psy

    Uploaded by

    Ivan Ruiz
    4 views8 pages

    Original Title

    Insanity in Forensic Psy (2)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    4 views8 pages

    Insanity in Forensic Psy

    Uploaded by

    Ivan Ruiz

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 8

    INSANITY AND

    FORENSIC
    PSYCHOLOGY
    Subtitle
    Competency vs insanity

    Insanity Competency
     Refers to the individual mental state  The mental state of the individual at the
    during the moment of the crime current moment
     The analysis is retrospective  The analysis is made in the present
     It is a legal defense for a criminal  Competency analysis could only lead to
    charge the postponement of the legal
    procedure
     Insanity verdicts often requires the
    present of a mental illness  Does not requires the presence of a
    mental illness
     Requires the individual to admit
    committing the crime  Does not requires the individual the
    admission of the crime
    Definition of insanity

     Insanity is not a psychological or clinical term


     The definition of insanity is solely legal and is linked to what is defined as Mens Rea
    (A guilty mind)
     Insanity requires a level of impairment that not all the mental illnesses present
    Standards of insanity

     Wild beast Standard(1724)


     M’ngaten Standard (1843)
     The irresistible impulse test (1924)
     Durham rule or the Product rule (1954)
     Brawner rule (1972)
     Guilty but mentally ill veredict (1974)
     Insanity defense reform act (1984)
    Wild beast standard

     For someone to be insane he must be totally deprived of his understanding and memory, and not know
    what he is doing anymore than an infant, a brute, or a wild beast.

     Presented in England around the 1724.

     The belief was that someone who was not responsible for his behavior had no more control over his
    behavior than a wild beast.
    The M’Naghten Assessment

     The case of Daniel M’Naghten marked another standard in the insanity defense
    starting in England
     M ’Naghten appeared to develop a complex delusional belief system that focused on the ruling political
    party at the time, the Tory Party. M ’Naghten believed offi cials in the Tory Party were out to get him and
    were going to murder him. He decided to travel to London in order to kill the Prime Minister and end his
    own persecution and murder. However, he mistakenly killed the Prime Minister ’s secretary, Edward
    Drummond, by shooting him with a pistol.

     The case was divided. The prosecutors explained that the subject presented a mental illness but he didn’t
    pass the wild beast case. The defense explain that his mental state didn’t let him differentiate write from
    wrong.

     The judge instructed the jury to fi nd M ’Naghten insane and he was committed to a mental hospital for
    the rest of his life.
    The M’Naghten Assessment

     M’Naghten standard first states that the defendant must suffer from a mental illness or “disease of the
    mind.” However, a disease of the mind was not clearly defined at the time and the courts continue to
    largely ignore a precise definition of mental illness for insanity.

     The second prong of M’Naghten focuses on the inability to know the nature or quality of the act. This
    prong is somewhat vague and has two parts, a focus on the nature and the quality of the act.

     Courts have interpreted the nature of the acts as pertaining to the physical aspects of the crime.

     The quality of the act suggests that the defendant must know the potential harm that could occur.

     The third prong of M’Naghten focuses on knowing right from wrong.


    M’NAGHTEN ASSESSMENT

     M’Naghten focuses almost exclusively on the cognitive aspects of insanity by emphasizing a


    defendant ’s intellectual ability to know and ignores the volitional aspects that could be
    impaired by a mental illness.
     Volitional refers to a person ’s ability to choose a given course of action. An insanity standard
    that considers volition would generally recognize problems with impulse control.
     Irresistible impulse tests suggests that even if a defendant knows the nature and quality of an
    act and is aware that it is wrong, he may be unable to stop his behavior

    You might also like