Problem 3 - Abnormal Psychology: An Integrative Approach

Question

Check your understanding of criminal commitment by identifying the following concepts: (a) competence to stand trial, (b) diminished capacity, (c) American Law Institute rule, (d) Durham rule, (e) M'Naghten rule, (f) malingering, \((g)\) expert witness, and (h) duty to warn. The person is not responsible for the crime if he is not able to appreciate the wrongfulness of behavior caused by mental disease or defect. ____________

Step-by-Step Solution

Answer

American Law Institute rule.

Step 1: Identify Each Concept

Before we identify which rule or concept fits the scenario described, let's ensure we understand each concept: (a) Competence to Stand Trial: Refers to a defendant's mental state during the trial. (b) Diminished Capacity: A partial defense that means the defendant did not possess a full mental capability at the time of the crime. (c) American Law Institute Rule: States a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time, due to mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. (d) Durham Rule: A person is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect. (e) M'Naghten Rule: A defendant may be excused if, due to mental illness, he did not understand the nature of the act or did not know it was wrong. (f) Malingering: The faking of mental or physical illness to avoid prosecution or gain some advantage. (g) Expert Witness: A professional with specialized knowledge who testifies in court. (h) Duty to Warn: The legal obligation to inform authorities or potential victims about threats or risk of harm.

Step 2: Match Concept to Scenario

The statement, "The person is not responsible for the crime if he is not able to appreciate the wrongfulness of behavior caused by mental disease or defect," aligns closely with the American Law Institute Rule from above. This rule specifically mentions the inability to appreciate wrongfulness due to a mental disease or defect as a defense.

Key Concepts

Competence to Stand Trial

Competence to Stand Trial involves assessing whether a defendant has the mental capacity necessary during their trial proceedings. It's not about their mental state at the time of the offense, but now, during their trial. To be considered competent, a defendant must:

• Understand the nature and purpose of the legal proceedings they face.
• Have the capacity to consult with their lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.

If a defendant is found incompetent, the trial is delayed. The court will seek to restore them to competence, possibly through treatment, so they can participate appropriately in their defense. The evaluation ensures fairness by preventing individuals who cannot comprehend proceedings or participate in their defense from standing trial.

Diminished Capacity

Diminished Capacity is not a full defense but a partial one involving the mental state of the defendant at the time of the offense. It acknowledges that the defendant, due to mental impairment, lacked the ability to form the requisite intent to commit a crime purposely. This legal doctrine can lead to:

• Reduced charges if the defendant is found to have a reduced ability to understand or control their actions.
• Lesser penalties as it might shift a charge from intentional to non-intentional, such as from murder to manslaughter.

It does not absolve the defendant of guilt but may lessen their legal responsibility due to their impaired mental capacity at the time of the crime.

American Law Institute Rule

The American Law Institute Rule offers a nuanced view concerning mental health defenses. It states that a defendant may not be held criminally responsible for unlawful acts if due to a mental disease or defect, they lack substantial capacity either to:

• Appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct.
• Conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.

This rule adds the concept of "lack of substantial capacity," offering more room for mental health considerations compared to stricter rules. It allows courts to recognize a broader range of mental impairments, acknowledging that mental illness might affect an individual's ability to control their actions, not just their ability to discern right from wrong.

M'Naghten Rule

The M'Naghten Rule is one of the earliest standards used to evaluate criminal insanity defenses. It focuses on cognitive understanding and was established by the British parliament in 1843. The rule excuses a defendant from criminal liability if, due to a "disease of the mind," they:

• Did not understand the nature and quality of the act they were doing.
• Did not know what they were doing was wrong.

This rule emphasizes the ability to understand right from wrong. If a mental disorder impairs this understanding, the defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Despite its age, it remains influential, although some criticize it for being too narrow since it doesn't consider the ability to control one's behavior.

Durham Rule

The Durham Rule, sometimes called the "product test," is a legal standard that states a defendant is not criminally responsible if their unlawful act was the product of mental illness. This rule broadens the criteria for considering mental illness in legal defenses, suggesting:

• Acts resulting from a mental disease or defect might not warrant legal punishment.
• Mental illness may have played a direct role in causing the criminal behavior.

Courts eventually moved away from this rule due to its complexity and difficulty in practical application. It required extensive expert testimony to establish the causal relationship between the mental disorder and criminal behavior. Its legacy is significant, though, as it spurred the development of more nuanced legal standards surrounding mental health defenses.