■ Talk in personally meaningful terms.
■ Listen carefully to the wording of questions.
■ Take time to think.
Criminal CasesFor generations, society has grappled with questions
of how best to deal with people who have commit-
ted criminal acts but who were so disturbed at the
time that it is debatable whether they were person-
ally responsible. Also difficult are decisions as to
whether an accused person is really competent to
understand the trial proceedings and thus to coop-
erate in his or her own defense.
The Insanity Plea. If the accused is judged to
have been sane at the time of the alleged crime,
then conviction will bring with it imprisonment,
fines, or probation. But the individual adjudged
insane at the time of the alleged crime will, if con-
victed, be regarded as not responsible and thereby
held for treatment rather than punishment. How-
ever, despite popular conceptions to the contrary,
the insanity plea is seldom successful (Greene &
Heilbrun, 2011). The defendant is typically
assumed to be responsible. Thus, an insanity plea
places the burden of its proof on the accused. In
most states and in the District of Columbia, the
burden of proof is on the defense; the defendant
must prove that she or he was insane at the time
of the criminal offense. It should be noted that
“insanity”is a legal term, not a medical, psychiatric,
or psychological term. The legal system assumes
that people make premeditated and rational
choices. Therefore, to behave irrationally is evi-
dence of insanity. But most psychologists would
not agree that all normal behavior is rationally
chosen. The deterministic view of science creates
problems for such a simple notion.
So, then, how is it decided that the accused was
insane? Although standards vary from state to state,
one of three standards typically prevails. The oldest
standard is the M’Naghten rule, promulgated in
England in 1843. It states that a successful insanity
defense must prove that the person committed the
unlawful act while“labouring under such a defect
of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know
the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if
he did know it, that he did not know he was doing
what was wrong.”
A second standard is theDurham standard(Dur-
ham v. United States, 1954). This standard was devel-
oped by Judge David Brazelton of the U.S. Court
of Appeals because of the perception that the
M’Naghten rule was outdated and in need of revi-
sion. TheDurhamstandard states that“an accused is
not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the
product of mental disease or mental defect.”How-
ever, many judges and lawyers expressed dissatisfac-
tion with this new standard because, in their view,
the expert testimony of mental health professionals
weighed too heavily in the decision (Constanzo,
2004).
The third standard is that the defendant is not
responsible for a criminal act if it was the result of a
mental disease or defect such that substantial capac-
ity to appreciate the criminality of the act or to
conform to the law was lacking. This is the so-
calledALI standardof the American Law Institute.
The ALI standard is viewed as the most liberal or
expansive in that criminal responsibility can be
excused if mental illness causes a lack of substantial
capacity to understand what one is doing (a cogni-
tive deficit) or an inability to control one’s behavior
(a volitional deficit).
The famousHinckleycase (the attempted assas-
sination of President Reagan) changed the judicial
scene in the United States (Greene & Heilbrun,
2011). Thenot guilty by reason of insanity(NGRI)
verdict angered many, and the fallout over this
case once again changed the legal standard for
insanity. Its first impact was to encourage a return
to the M’Naghten rule where cognitive factors
rather than volitional ones are paramount. Its sec-
ond impact is seen in the Supreme Court’s ruling
that it is constitutional to automatically and indefi-
nitely confine someone who is acquitted of a crime
as the result of an insanity plea. Third, the verdict
“guilty but mentally ill”was introduced into the
defense statutes of several states as well as the federal
government. Finally, more states began to place theFORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY 545