I'm writing a paper at the moment, and the bulk of it is strictly medieval, but at one point I need to bring in the concepts of "legally insane," "unfit to stand trial," general awareness of one's actions with respect to culpability. I would honestly not know where to even begin looking for this info. I am not up on my legalese. I just need a sort of "quick and dirty" rundown, or preferably, confirmation that I'm not egregiously wrong in what I say.
1. Lack of awareness of one's actions or their result is key in determining insanity. That is, if I kill someone in a delusional state where I think they're a rabid bear or something, I still killed them, but I was insane at the time - I am less culpable than doing it with conscious intent?
2. Insanity at the time I committed a crime is the biggest (or a big) issue. It could be that I'm insane all the time, or it could be a one-off event.
3. Specific medical diagnosis is left to the doctors. What is important with regards to culpability is the disconnect between my mind and my actions mentioned in #1.
Forgive me if I sound incredibly ignorant. I'm finding myself sort of shoved into this discussion with my current research, and I've been trying to dredge my mind for what I know of modern practice - most of it picked up here on Hatrack.
posted
There are two principle tests in U.S. law, depending on jurisdiction, irresistible impulse and the M'Naghten rule.
The M'Naghten rule says that a person makes out the insanity defense if, at the time of the act, either (1) he could not appreciate the nature of his act (such as not knowing that stabbing someone kills them, thinking that the census takers pen was an alien weapon that would kill him, or that thinking that a baby is actually a pot roast) or (2) did not know that his act was wrong (the alien weapon example could fit under here).
The irresistible impulse test states someone is not criminally culpable if a mental condition causes them to not be in control of the actions that would otherwise constitute an offense. This is a more permissive defense than the M'Naghten rule.
The Model Penal Code (the basis for NY and many other states' criminal laws) has a hybrid of the two. A person is insane if he lacks the mental capacity to either appreciate the criminality of the act or conform his actions to the law.
Federal law is basically the M'Naghten rule with the additional requirement that the mental condition be "severe." This came about after Hinkley got off.
Typically, the defendant bears the burden of proving the insanity defense. The burden can range from preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) to "clear and convincing evidence" (just below reasonable doubt).
None of these tests were applicable in medieval times.
All of this is distinct from competence to stand trial. A person is competent generally if he can understand the nature of the charges and assist in his defense.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
That gives me the positive state of a guilty mind, but it's the circumstances that surround one who is non mens rea(?) that I'm interested in, and insanity in particular (as opposed to negligence or ignorance).
But thanks, that gives me somewhere to look further!
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, first off, thanks Dagonee. If I understand things correctly, I'm on the right trail.
From the wikipedia article on M'Naghten Rules:
quote:if that person is deprived permanently or temporarily of the capacity to form a necessary mental intent that the definition of a crime requires
quote:to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason
Those are the bits I need, I think, that and mens rea.
While I'm very careful, generally, about not mixing modern and medieval, I've been trying to come to a coherent set of conclusions about the nature of a word in Middle English commonly associated with madness: wod - and its Latin cognate, furens or furiosus. I've been suspecting that there's rather more subtlety to it than translators have given it in the past. Usually it's translated as "mad," "insane," or even "rage," but it tends to depend on the whim of the translator and their understanding of the context it appears in.
Wod appears to share key feature with M'Naghten rules: the main requirement for wodness is the incapacity to form mental intent in one's actions, criminal or otherwise, and can be either permanent or transitory. Also like M'Naghten Rules, the causes of incapacity can vary - where it differs is in the differentiation between causes. External cause vs internal cause was less relevant, though wodness from external causes may or may not be sinful - I still have to sort that.
Anyway, this brings together all of my literary, pastoral, canonical, and possibly even legal sources into one surprisingly consistent understanding of the vocabulary. I don't think the two are exactly comparable and I will probably never know how much of the "definition" was consciously acknowledged at the time, but it gives me a useful mental shorthand. It also gives me something to compare related vocabulary to - fools, idiots, and those of "alienated mind."
And at the end of it all, it amuses me that "medieval" is used as a shorthand for "unenlightened, superstitious, and barbaric" so often, and yet this wonderful, progressive legal concept is so... medieval. A pox on Whiggish history! I can never say that in an academic arena, but in my own head, I'm entertained.
So thanks again to both of you!
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The irresistible impulse test states someone is not criminally culpable if a mental condition causes them to not be in control of the actions that would otherwise constitute an offense. This is a more permissive defense than the M'Naghten rule.
Would this apply to a rage disorder?
A guy I went to high school with killed his girlfriend a few years ago. He was a nice guy, but we all knew that he sometimes flew off the handle. In one particular instance, he was screaming at a girl, while several of us watched with an eye to intervene, because it looked like it could get physical.
It was a weird feeling, because you could tell by his face that he wanted to stop, but he had to actively suppress his behavior. Like as if he was physically trying to stop a heavy object from moving. Gradually he stopped, forced a grimace onto his face, and finally convinced it to turn into a smile. Then he told us that he was "better now." But he looked very embarrassed.
When he killed his girlfriend, he went straight to the police and turned himself in. His court appointed lawyer pleaded not guilty on his behalf, I think by insanity, but a month or so later he went to the judge and told him that he couldn't forgive himself for what he'd done, and he didn't want anyone else to either. He changed his plea to guilty.
I've often felt that he must have been tormented by the rage within him. Very much like the Hulk, I think. I tend to think that part of why he pleaded guilty was because he hoped prison would assert an outside influence to protect him from his own rage.
In any case I wonder if an insanity plea would have applied to him, and whether he would be better off in a mental hospital.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:In any case I wonder if an insanity plea would have applied to him, and
Rage is particularly difficult to argue as an insanity defense. For one, it's already accounted for in homicide law by the provocation form of manslaughter.
Second, were I the prosecutor opposing such a plea, I would point to the times he controlled the rage as evidence that the impulse is resistible.
The real difficulty faced by a defendant using rage as the basis for an insanity defense is that almost all jurors have experienced rage and likely had to control it (even if at a much lower level), whereas few jurors have ever thought Jody Foster wanted them to kill the President. I think a continuum kind of disorder is simply harder for the average person to acknowledge as an excuse of otherwise inexcusable behavior.
There's also the fear that if we allow rage disorders to qualify, it will work its way down to allowing normal anger to be an excuse for criminal acts.
quote:whether he would be better off in a mental hospital.
This is a question that I have no way to answer, either in the hypothetical or the specific sense. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I didn't ask it as a question because neither part is really answerable in the present tense. He chose to go to prison without trying to make a case, so it's over.
It's weird, partly because I know him, and you know, people you know never become murderers. But also because I give him a lot of credit for not trying to get off, so it's a paradox: murderers who try to get off deserve less sympathy than a guy who says "throw the book at me."
And also because I know enough about him to think that he must have spent most of his life in fear that his rage would catch up with him.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It occurs to me that Dahmer pleaded "guilty, BUT insane." I don't know if that's likely to get someone psychological treatment or not, but I hope he's working on it in prison.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
