The instanity defense full#
The instanity defense code#
The instanity defense trial#

when one is in a confused state, intoxicated, or not of sound mind. It is the direct opposite of Compos mentis (of a sound mind).Īlthough typically used in law, this term can also be used metaphorically or figuratively e.g. Non compos mentis derives from the Latin non meaning 'not', compos meaning 'having command' or 'composed', and mentis ( genitive singular of mens), meaning 'of mind'. Non compos mentis (Latin) is a legal term meaning 'not of sound mind'.

3.3 Mitigating factors and diminished capacity.

A defendant claiming the defense is pleading ' not guilty by reason of insanity' ( NGRI) or ' guilty but insane or mentally ill' in some jurisdictions which, if successful, may result in the defendant being committed to a psychiatric facility for an indeterminate period. Some jurisdictions require the evaluation to address the defendant's ability to control their behavior at the time of the offense (the volitional limb). Similarly, mental health practitioners are restrained from making a judgment on the 'ultimate issue'-whether the defendant is insane. Their testimony guides the jury, but they are not allowed to testify to the accused's criminal responsibility, as this is a matter for the jury to decide. The defense is based on evaluations by forensic mental health professionals with the appropriate test according to the jurisdiction. Mitigating factors, including things not eligible for the insanity defense such as intoxication (or, more frequently, diminished capacity), may lead to reduced charges or reduced sentences. In the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the United States, use of the defense is rare. It originated in the M'Naghten Rule, and has been reinterpreted and modernized through more recent cases, such as People v. Being incapable of distinguishing right from wrong is one basis for being found to be legally insane as a criminal defense. : 613–635 In the criminal laws of Australia and Canada, statutory legislation enshrines the M'Naghten Rules, with the terms defense of mental disorder, defense of mental illness or not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder employed.

The instanity defense code#

Legal definitions of insanity or mental disorder are varied, and include the M'Naghten Rule, the Durham rule, the 1953 British Royal Commission on Capital Punishment report, the ALI rule (American Legal Institute Model Penal Code rule), and other provisions, often relating to a lack of mens rea ('guilty mind').

The instanity defense full#

: 613Įxemption from full criminal punishment on such grounds dates back to at least the Code of Hammurabi.

The instanity defense trial#

: 613 It is also contrasted with a finding that a defendant cannot stand trial in a criminal case because a mental disease prevents them from effectively assisting counsel, from a civil finding in trusts and estates where a will is nullified because it was made when a mental disorder prevented a testator from recognizing the natural objects of their bounty, and from involuntary civil commitment to a mental institution, when anyone is found to be gravely disabled or to be a danger to themself or to others. This is contrasted with an excuse of provocation, in which the defendant is responsible, but the responsibility is lessened due to a temporary mental state.

The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to an episodic or persistent psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act.