The insanity defense , also known as defense mental disorder , is a criminal defense reason, on the grounds that the defendant is not responsible for his actions due to episodic or persistent psychiatric illness at the time criminal acts. This contrasts with the reasons for provocation, in which the defendant is responsible, but the responsibility is reduced due to his temporary mental state. It is also contrasted with the findings that the defendant can not be tried in a criminal case because mental illness prevents him from assisting counsel effectively, from civil findings in custody and plantations where a will is canceled because it is created when the mental Disorder prevents an heir from recognizing the objects of their grace , and from unintentional civic commitment to mental institutions, when some are found to be severely disabled or become a danger to themselves or others.
The exclusion of the full criminal penalty on such grounds is at least in the Hammurabi Code of Conduct. The legal definition of insanity or mental disorder varies, and includes the M'Naghten Rules , rules Durham , the British Royal Commission on Capital Punishment Commission of 1953, the rules of ALI (Criminal Code of the American Law Institute, and other provisions, are often associated with a lack of confidence ("guilty mind"). In the criminal law of Australia and Canada, statutory legislation perpetuates the M'Naghten Rules , with the terms defense of mental disorders , mental illness defenses or not being criminally responsible for reasons of mental disorder are used not being able to distinguish right from wrong is one of the foundations to be found legally insane as a criminal defense.It is derived from M'Naghten Rule , and has been reinterpreted and modernized through newer cases , such as People v. Serravo .
In the UK, Ireland, and the United States, the use of defense is rare; however, since the 1991 Insanity and Unfitness to Plead Act, insanity madness has continued to rise in the UK. Reducing factors, including things that do not qualify for mad defenses such as intoxication (or, more often, reduced capacity), can lead to cost reductions or reduced penalties.
Advocacy is based on evaluation by forensic mental health professionals with appropriate tests according to jurisdiction. Their testimony leads the jury, but they are not allowed to testify to the criminal responsibility of the accused, because this is a matter for which the jury should decide. Similarly, mental health practitioners are restrained from making judgments about the issue of whether the defendant is or is not insane or what is known as a "major problem".
Some jurisdictions require an evaluation to overcome the ability of the defendant to control their behavior at the time of the offense (the volitional limb). A defendant who claims the defense claims to be "innocent by reason of insanity" ( NGRI ) or " guilty but crazy or mentally ill " in some jurisdictions which, if successful, may result the defendant committed to the psychiatric facility for an unspecified period.
Video Insanity defense
Reduce factor and reduce capacity
The United States Supreme Court (in Penny v. Lynaugh) and the United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit (in Bigby v. Dretke) have made it clear in their decision that the jury's instruction in the case the death penalty that did not ask about the mitigation factors about the mental health of the accused violated the Eighth Amendment right of the accused, saying that the jury should be instructed to consider mitigation factors when answering unrelated questions. This decision suggests a special explanation to the jury necessary to consider mitigation factors.
Reduced responsibility or reduced capacity can be used as a mitigating or partial defense factor for crime and, in the United States, applies to more states than defense of madness. The Homicide Act 1957 is the legal basis for the defense of diminished responsibilities in England and Wales, whereas in Scotland it is the product of the law of law. The diminished number of findings of responsibility has been matched by a decrease of unfairness of defense findings and insanity (Walker, 1968). The request for a diminished capacity different from that of insanity in "madness" is a full defense while "reduced capacity" is merely a request for a lesser crime.
Maps Insanity defense
Non compos mentis
Non compos mentis (Latin) is a legal term which means "not a healthy thought". Non compos mentis is derived from the Latin non which means "no", compos which means "has command" or "compiled", and mentis (Genitive singular of mens ), meaning "mind". This is the direct opposite of Compos mentis (from a healthy mind).
Although commonly used in law, the term may also be used figuratively or figuratively; for example when a person is confused, drunk, or unwell physically. This term may be applied when the determination of competence needs to be made by the physician for the purpose of obtaining informed consent for care and, if necessary, assigning a substitute for making health care decisions. While the exact scope for this determination is in court, it is practical, and most often, made by doctors in a clinical setting.
In English law, the non compos mentis rule is most often used when a defendant uses a religious or magical explanation for behavior.
Withdrawal or denial of defense
Some cases have decided that people found innocent by reason of insanity may not withdraw the defense in habeas petition to pursue an alternative, although there are exceptions in other decisions. In Country v. Connelly, 700 A.2d 694 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997), an applicant who was initially found innocent by reason of insanity and committed for ten years to the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board, filed a warrant from habeas corpus and the court vacated his irreverence. He was given a new trial and convicted on original charges, receiving a 40-year prison sentence.
In the case of the landmark Frendak v. United States in 1979, the court ruled that advocacy of insanity could not be imposed on a defendant who would not want to if the intelligent defendant voluntarily wanted to cancel the defense.
Psychiatric care
Those found innocent by reason of mental disorder or madness are generally then asked to undergo mental treatment in mental institutions, except in cases of temporary insanity (see below). In England and Wales, under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act of 1991 (amended by Domestic Violence, Crime and Victim Act, 2004 to remove the guard command option), courts may order hospital orders, restrict orders (where exemption from the hospital requires permission from the Minister of Home Affairs), the order of "supervision and care", or absolute liberation. Unlike the defendants found guilty of committing a crime, they are not instituted for a certain period of time, but are held in the institution until they are determined not to be a threat. The authorities making these decisions tend to be cautious, and as a result, the defendants can often be instituted longer than they should be incarcerated in jail.
In Foucha v. Louisiana (1992), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a person can not be held "indefinitely".
So far, in the United States, people who were released from federal offenses by reason of insanity have not been able to challenge their psychiatric confinement through habeas corpus warrants or other treatments. In Archuleta v. Hedrick, 365 F.3d 644 (8 Cir 2004), the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit court ruled those found innocent by reason of insanity and then wanted to challenge their cages might not strike a successful initial insanity defense:
The appeals court confirmed the lower court's ruling: "Having been elected to make himself a member of the 'extraordinary class' of people seeking an innocent conviction by reason of insanity... he can not be heard to complain about the legal consequences of his election." states that there is no direct attack on the final verdict of release on the grounds of insanity is possible. He also stated that the collateral attack that he was not informed that a possible alternative to his commitment was to request a new trial is not a meaningful alternative.
Disability and mental illness
The important difference that must be made is the difference between competence and criminal responsibility.
- The issue of competence is whether the defendant can adequately assist his lawyer in preparing the defense, make informed decisions about the court strategy and whether to plead guilty or accept a plea agreement. This issue is addressed in English law as "fitness for pleading".
Competence is largely related to the current condition of the defendant, while criminal liability deals with the conditions at which the crime was committed.
In the United States, a court in which the defense of insanity is committed usually involves the testimony of a psychiatrist or psychologist who, as an expert witness, gives an opinion on the state of the defendant at the time of the offense.
Therefore, a person whose mental disorder is not in a dispute is determined to be sane if the court decides that although "mental illness" the defendant is responsible for the actions taken and will be treated in court as a normal defendant. If the person has mental illness and it is determined that a mental illness impairs a person's ability to determine right and wrong (and other relevant criteria of jurisdiction may have) and if the person is willing to plead guilty or be found guilty in a court of law, some jurisdictions have a known alternative option as one Guilty but Illness ( GBMI ) or a verdict Guilty but Crazy . The GBMI verdict is available as an alternative, not in lieu of a "innocent by crazy ruling" verdict. Michigan (1975) was the first country to make a GBMI decision, after two inmates were released after NGRI found a violent crime within a year of being released, one raped two women and the other killed his wife.
Temporary madness
The idea of ​​ temporary insanity is of the opinion that the defendant is crazy during a crime, but they later regain their sanity after the crime is committed. This legal defense is usually used to defend individuals who have committed a crime of passion. Defense was first used successfully by US Congressman Daniel Sickles of New York in 1859 after he murdered the lover of his wife, Philip Barton Key. Another case of the nineteenth century was the case of Charles J. Guiteau, who killed President James Garfield in 1881. Defense became more common during the 1940s and 1950s.
History
The concept of defense by madness has existed since ancient Greece and Rome. However, the delusional Dorothy Talbye in the colonial America was hanged in 1638 for killing his daughter, because at that time Massachusetts's general law did not distinguish between insanity (or mental illness) and criminal behavior. Edward II, under Common English, declares that a person is mad if their mental capacities are nothing more than "wild beasts" (in the sense of stupid animals, not madness). The first complete transcript of the crazy trial dated to 1724. It is quite possible that crazy, as under 14, escaped trial by trials. When the trial by the jury replaces this, the jury members are expected to find the mad guilty person but then refer the case to the King for Royal Grass. From 1500 onwards, the jury can free the mad, and detention requires separate civil procedure (Walker, 1985). The Criminal Lunatics Act 1800, graduating with a retrospective effect after the release of James Hadfield, a detention mandated on the pleasure of the regent (unlimited) even for those who, despite crazy at the time of the offense, are now sane.
The M'Naghten Rules of 1843 is not a codification or definition of madness but rather a response from a panel of judges to a hypothetical question posed by Parliament in the wake of the release of Daniel M'Naghten for the murder of Edward Drummond, whom he mistook for British Prime Minister Robert Peel. The rule defines the defense as "at the time of committing the acts alleged to the party who works under the intellect, from the illness of the mind, for not knowing the nature and quality of his actions, or not to know that what he is doing is wrong." The key is that the defendant can not appreciate the nature of his actions during committing a crime.
In Ford v. Wainwright 477 U.S. 399 (1986), the US Supreme Court upheld the general rule of law that crazy people can not be executed. It further states that a person under the death penalty is entitled to a competency evaluation and to a trial of evidence in the hearing on the matter of competence to be executed. In Wainwright v. Greenfield , the Court ruled that it was basically unfair for prosecutors to comment during court proceedings about the silence of the applicant being petitioned as a result of Miranda's warning. The prosecutor has stated that the silence of the respondent after receiving Miranda's warning is proof of his sanity.
United States Act
In the United States, the difference in defense of insanity between states, and in the federal court system, is caused by differences with respect to three major issues:
- Availability : does the jurisdiction allow the defendant to increase the defense of madness,
- Definitions : when a defense is available, what facts will support the discovery of insanity, and
- The burden of proof : does the accused have an obligation to prove insanity or the prosecutor has an obligation to refute insanity, and with what proof standard.
Availability
In the United States, a criminal defendant can raise insults in federal courts, and in state courts of every country except Idaho, Kansas, Montana, and Utah. However, defendants in countries that prohibit the defense of insanity may still be able to show that the defendant is unable to form an intention to commit a crime as a result of mental illness.
Definition
Every state and federal court system currently uses one of the following "tests" to define insanity for the purpose of defense of insanity. Over the decades the use of the definition of insanity has been modified by law, with changes to the availability of mad defenses, what constitutes legal madness whether the prosecutor or defendant has the burden of proof, the evidentiary standards required in the hearing, court proceedings, and for commitments and issuing procedures for defendants who have been released on the basis of the findings of insanity.
M'Naghten Test
Guidelines for the M'Naghten Rule , state, inter alia , and evaluation of criminal liability for the crazy defendant were settled in English court in the case of Daniel M'Naghten in 1843. M'Naghten is a Scottish logger who kills the prime minister's secretary, Edward Drummond, in a failed attempt to kill the prime minister himself. M'Naghten seems to believe that the prime minister is the architect of a myriad of personal and financial misfortunes that befell him. During his trial, nine witnesses testified that he was mad, and the jury freed him, finding him "innocent by reason of insanity."
The House of Lords asked the judge of the common law courts to answer five questions about insanity as a criminal defense, and the formulation that emerged from their review - that the defendant should not be held liable for his actions only if, as a result of his mental illness or disability, he (I) that his actions will be wrong; or (ii) does not understand the nature and quality of its actions - the legal basis governing legal responsibility in cases of insanity in Britain. Under the rules, loss of control due to mental illness there is no defense. The M'Naghten rule was embraced with almost no modification by the US courts and legislatures for more than 100 years, until the mid-20th century.
Durham The strict M'Naghten standard for defense insanity was widely used until the 1950s and the case of Durham v. United States . In the case of Durham , the court ruled that the defendant was entitled to be released if the crime was a product of his mental illness (ie, a crime would not be committed but for illness). The test, also called Product Testing, is broader than the M'Naghten test or an unbearable impulse test. This test has a softer guideline for the defense of insanity, but it addresses the problem of punishing the mentally ill accused, permitted under the M'Naghten Rule. However, the Durham standard attracts a lot of criticism because of its broad definition of legal madness.
Model Criminal Code Test
The Model Penal Code, published by the American Law Institute, provides a standard for legal madness that serves as a compromise between strict M'Naghten Regulations, soft Durham decisions, and unbearable impulse tests. Based on the MPC standard, which represents the modern trend, the defendant is not responsible for the criminal act "if at the time of the behavior as a result of a mental illness or disability he does not have substantial capacity either to respect the criminality of his behavior or to adjust his behavior with legal requirements. "Thus, tests take into account both cognitive capacity and the will of madness.
federal court
After the perpetrators of President Reagan's assassination attempt were found not guilty by reason of insanity, Congress passed the 1984 Mental Reform Reform Act. Under this action, the burden of proof shifted from the prosecutor's office to the defense and the standard of evidence in federal trials was upgraded from larger evidence to evidence clear and convincing. The ALI test is thrown in favor of a new test that looks more like M'Naghten. Under this new test, only the perpetrators who suffer from severe mental illness at the time of the crime can successfully use the defense of madness. The ability of the defendant to control himself is no longer a consideration.
The law also limits the scope of psychiatric testimony and adopts strict procedures regarding inpatient care and the release of those who are declared innocent by reason of madness.
Guilty but mentally ill
As an alternative to defense of madness, some jurisdictions allow the defendant to plead guilty but mentally ill. A defendant convicted but mentally ill may be sentenced for mental health treatment, to the conclusion that the defendant will serve the remainder of his sentence in the same manner as the other defendants.
Burden of proof
In most states, the burden proves the insanity placed on the defendant, who must prove insanity by larger evidence.
In a small portion of the state, the burden is placed on the claimant's side, which must prove sanity without a doubt.
In federal court, and in Arizona, the burden was placed on the defendant, who had to prove madness with clear and convincing evidence. See 18 U.S.C.S. Seconds. 17 (b); see also A.R.S. Seconds. 13-502 (C).
Controversy
This crazy request is used in the US Criminal Justice System in less than 1% of all criminal cases. Little is known about the criminal justice system and the mentally ill:
It should be noted, however, that there is no definitive study of the percentage of people with mental illnesses in contact with police, appearing as criminal defendants, imprisoned, or under the supervision of the public. In addition, the scope of this issue varies across jurisdictions. Thus, supporters should rely as much as possible on statistics collected by local and state government agencies.
Several US states have begun banning the use of mad defenses, and in 1994 the Supreme Court rejected a certiorari request requesting a review of the Montana Supreme Court case in favor of the abolition of Montana's defenses. Idaho, Kansas, and Utah have also banned the defense. However, defendants/patients suffering from mental disorders may be found unfit for trial in these countries. In 2001, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the abolition of their state defense was unconstitutional as a violation of the Federal legal process. In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled Clark v. Arizona upholds Arizona's restrictions on mad defenses. In the same ruling, the Court noted "We never declare that the Constitution mandates the defense of insanity, nor do we deem that the Constitution is less necessary."
Defense madness is also tricky because of the fundamental differences in philosophy between psychiatrists/psychologists and legal professionals. In the United States, a psychiatrist, psychologist or other mental health professional is often consulted as an expert witness in cases of insanity, but the highest legal judgment on the defendant's sanity is determined by the jury, not by a psychologist. In other words, psychologists give testimony and professional opinion but ultimately are not responsible for answering legal questions.
src: clipground.com
Australian law
In Australia there are nine units of law. All may have various rules (see [1]). In South Australia, the 1935 Criminal Legislation Consolidation Act (SA) states that:
269C - Mental competence
A person is mentally incompetent to commit an offense if, at the time of the allegedly offensive behavior, the person suffers from a mental disorder and, as a result of a mental disorder--
- (a) does not know the nature and quality of behavior; or
- (b) did not know that the behavior was wrong; or
- (c) can not control the behavior.
269H - Mental habits for trial
A person is mentally unwell to be tried on a charge of offense if the person's mental process is so disorganized or disturbed that the person is--
- (a) can not understand, or respond rationally, the allegations or allegations on which it is based; or
- (b) can not perform (or provide rational instructions on the exercise of) procedural rights (such as, for example, the right to challenge a jury); or
- (c) can not understand the nature of the process, or to follow evidence or the course of the proceedings.
In Victoria, the defense of current mental disorder is introduced in the 1997 Crime (Mental Damage and Noncompliance Trial) Act that replaces the general legal defense of madness and unrestricted detention of governors' enjoyment by the following matters:
- the defendant suffers from a mental disorder; and
- mental disorder affects the defendant so that he does not understand the nature and quality of the behavior, or does not know that it is wrong.
This requirement is almost identical to the M'Naghten Rules, replacing "mental disorders" for "mind diseases".
In New South Wales, defense has been renamed 'Defense of Mental Illness' in Part 4 of the Mental Health (Forensic Conditions) Act 1990 . However, the definition of defense comes from the M'Naghten case and has not been codified. Whether a particular condition is a disease of the mind is not a medical problem but a law that must be decided in accordance with ordinary interpretation rules. This defense is an exception to Woolmington v DPP (1935) 'golden threads', when those who raise the issue of mental disease defenses bear the burden of proving this defense to a balance of probability. Generally, the defense will raise madness issues. However, the prosecutor can raise it in exceptional circumstances: Rv Ayoub (1984).
The Australian case is increasingly qualified and explains the M'Naghten Rules . The Supreme Court of NSW has held there two limbs to the M'Naghten Rules, that the defendant did not know what he was doing, or that the defendant did not appreciate that what he was doing was morally wrong, in both cases the defendant had to operating under the 'mind-defect, from the mind's disease'. The High Court at Rv Porter states that the defendant's state of mind is only relevant at the time of reus activity. In Woodbridge v The Queen the court stated that symptoms suggesting illness of the mind should be vulnerable to relapse and to be the result of underlying pathologic disease. 'Mutation' is the inability to think rationally and relate to the inability to reason, rather than having unhealthy ideas or difficulties with such tasks. Examples of mind diseases include Arteriosclerosis (thought so because arterial hardening affects the mind.
src: media.npr.org
Canadian Law
Terms of the Criminal Code
Defenses of mental disorders are codified in section 16 of the Criminal Code which states, in part:
16. (1) No person shall be personally liable for any acts or omissions committed while suffering from a mental disorder which makes the person unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the acts or omissions or know that That is wrong.
To establish a claim of mental disorder, the person raising the matter must point out the first balance of probability that the person doing the act suffers from a "mind illness", and secondly, that at the time of their violation 1) can not appreciate the "nature and quality" of the action, or 2 ) did not know it was "wrong".
The meaning of the word "wrong" is determined in the case of the Supreme Court R. v. Chaulk [1990] 3 S.C.R. who consider that "wrong" is NOT limited to "wrongly legally" but also "morally wrong".
Post-verdict
The current legislative scheme was made by the Canadian Parliament after the previous scheme was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada at R. v. Swain . The new provision also replaces the old insanity defense with the current defense of mental disorders.
Once a person is found to be not criminally liable ("NCR"), he will have a hearing by the Review Board within 45 days (90 days if the court extends the delay). The Review Board is established under Section XX.1 of the Criminal Code and consists of at least three members, a person who is a judge or eligible to be a judge, psychiatrist and other relevant expertise, such as social work, criminology or psychology. Parties to the Council's Examination Meeting are usually defendants, Crowns and hospitals responsible for the supervision or assessment of the defendant. The Review Board is responsible for both defendants who found NCR or persons accused of being unfit for trial due to a mental disorder. A Review Council dealing with NCR actors should consider two questions: whether the defendant is a "significant threat to public safety" and, if so, what are the "least severe and strictest" restrictions on the freedom of the defendant should be to mitigate such threats. The process before the Review Board is inquisitorial and not hostile. Often the Review Board will be active in the investigation. If the Review Board can not conclude that the defendant constitutes a significant threat to public safety, the review board shall give the defendant an absolute liberation, an order which essentially terminates the criminal law jurisdiction over the accused. If not, the Review Board should order the accused to be released, depending on the conditions or held in hospital, depending on conditions. The conditions imposed must be the least severe and least restrictive necessary to mitigate any harm alleged to the other party.
Because the Review Board is empowered under criminal justice under s. 91 (27) of the Constitution Act, 1867 single justification for its jurisdiction is public safety. Therefore, the nature of the investigation is the danger alleged to the defendants to public safety rather than whether the defendant "recovered." For example, many "sick" people are accused of being thrown out absolute on the grounds that they are harmless to the public while many "sane" are accused of being detained on the grounds that they are dangerous. In addition, the idea of ​​a "significant threat to public safety" is "criminal threat." This means that the Review Board should find that the threat posed by the defendant is criminal.
While the trial before the Review Board is less formal than in court, there are many procedural safe-guards available to the defendant given the potential unlimited nature of Section XX.1. Each party may appeal the Board of Review's decision.
In 1992 when the provision of a new mental disorder was enacted, Parliament included the provision of "restrictions" to be enacted in the future. This restrictive provision limits the Review Board's jurisdiction over the defendant based on the maximum penalty potential if the defendant has been convicted (eg there will be a 5 year limit if maximum penalty for index offense is 5 years). However, these provisions are never enforced and subsequently revoked.
The Review Board should hold hearings every 12 months (unless extended to 24 months) until the defendant is completely acquitted.
Accused of unworthy to be tried
Mental disorder problems can also occur before the trial begins, if the mental state of the accused prevents the defendant from being able to respect the nature of the trial and defend.
A defendant found not eligible for trial is subject to the jurisdiction of the Review Board. Though basically the same considerations, there are some provisions that apply only to not be accused. The Review Board shall determine whether the defendant is fit to be tried. Regardless of such determination, the Review Board should then determine what conditions should be imposed on the defendant, considering the public protection and maintenance of the defendant's fitness (or conditions that would make the defendants fit). Previously, absolute freedom was not available to improper defendants. However, in R. v. Demers, the Supreme Court of Canada has violated the provisions limiting the availability of absolute discharge to defendants deemed "not eligible permanently" and not a significant threat to public safety. At this time, the Review Board may recommend delays in litigation if it finds that the defendant is "not eligible permanently" and is not harmful. The decision is left to the court that has jurisdiction over the defendant.
An additional requirement for improper defendants is to hold a "prima facie case" which is heard every two years. The crown should show to a court that has jurisdiction over the defendant that they still have sufficient evidence to try the defendant. If the Crown fails to meet this burden the defendant is dismissed and the process is terminated. The nature of hearing is almost identical to the initial hearing.
src: cdn.abclocal.go.com
Scottish Law
The Scottish Law Commission, in Discussion Paper. 122 on Declining Madness and Responsibility (2003), pp. 16/18, affirms that the law has not changed much from the position stated in the Hume Comment:
- Next we can deal with the case of the unfortunates, who have defended the pathetic defense of ignorance or insanity. Which conditions, if it is not assumed or imperfect, but pure and thorough insanity, and proven by the testimony of intelligent witnesses, make such an act from a baby, and equally bestow the privilege of all exceptions from all means of flavor sick; Cum alterum innocentia concilii tuetur, alterum fati excelicitas excusat . I say, where madness is absolute, and truly proven: For if reason and humanity impose a defense under these circumstances, there is no need to pay attention to warnings and reserves in applying the law, because it will prevent it to be understood that there is a privilege in the case of weakness mere intellectual, or odd and moody humor, or a crazy and fickle or angry temperament. In this situation does not exist or can the law forgive the perpetrator. Since such a constitution is not exclusive of a competent understanding of the true state of the circumstances in which the deed is committed, or the subsistence of some steady and evil passion, is based on that state, and directed to a particular object. To serve the purpose of defense in law, the disorder must be an absolute imposition of the reason, the continua mentis alienatione, omni intellectu careat - such a disease because it robs the patient of knowledge about the correct aspect and the position of things about him - hinders him from distinguishing friends from enemies - and gives him encouragement for his own excessive pleasures.
The phrase "absolute redirect reason" is still considered the core of defense in modern law (see HM Advocate v Kidd (1960) JC 61 and Brennan v HM Advocate (1977)
Nordic Countries
In the Nordic countries, insanity is not a defense; on the contrary, it is the responsibility of the court system to consider whether the defendant may be psychotic or suffer another serious mental disability when committing a crime. This explains why, in Norway, the court considers the sanity of Anders Behring Breivik, even if he himself is declared sane.
The rules differ between Nordic countries.
In Sweden, psychotic actors are deemed responsible, but sanctions are, if they are psychotic at the time of trial, mental treatment of forensics.
In Denmark and Norway, psychotic offenders are found guilty, but not punished. Instead of imprisonment, they were sentenced to mandatory. However, there are important differences between Norway and Denmark.
In Norway, Ã,§44 of the criminal law specifically states that "a person who at the time of the crime is mad or unconscious is not punished".
In Denmark, Ã,§§16 of the criminal law states that "People, who, at the time of the act, are not responsible for mental illness or similar conditions or mental shortcomings, can not be punished". This means that in Denmark, 'madness' is a legal term rather than a medical term and that the court retains the authority to decide whether the accused is irresponsible or not.
In Finland, punishment can only be made if the defendant is compos mentis , with a healthy mind; not if the defendant is crazy ( syyntakeeton , literally "can not guarantee [assume responsibility] guilt"). Thus, a mad defendant can be found guilty on the basis of fact and his actions as a sane accused, but insanity will only affect the punishment. The definition of insanity is similar to the above M'Naught criteria: "The defendant is crazy; if during the act, due to mental illness, profound mental retardation or severe mental health disorder or consciousness, he or she can not understand the true nature of his actions or illegality, to control his behavior is very weak ". If a suspect is suspected of crazy, the court should consult with the National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), which is obliged to place the accused in an unconscious commitment if he is found insane. Perpetrators do not accept judicial punishment; he becomes a patient under the jurisdiction of THL, and should be released as soon as a condition of unintentional commitment is no longer met. Lack of responsibility is also available, resulting in lighter sentences.
Usage level and success
Source of the article : Wikipedia
It should be noted, however, that there is no definitive study of the percentage of people with mental illnesses in contact with police, appearing as criminal defendants, imprisoned, or under the supervision of the public. In addition, the scope of this issue varies across jurisdictions. Thus, supporters should rely as much as possible on statistics collected by local and state government agencies.
0 Comments