Insanity During the Commission of a Crime - Determining the Mental Competence of a Defendant

Psychologists and psychiatrists don't only counsel clients, teach, or write research papers, they also play a part in the legal system. While the media tends to blow the amount of insanity cases, and especially successful insanity cases, out of proportion, they do occur. Also true is that psychologists and/or psychiatrists play a part in determining if a defendant is competent to stand trial and whether they are responsible for the crimes they commit, or are accused on committing. If a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity, it indicates that the defendant is not guilty of committing the crime because they were "insane" at the time the crime was committed. It's critical to note at this point that "insanity" is not a clinical term, but rather a term coined by the legal community of Britain and adopted by the United States. According to the M'Naghten rule, "experiencing a mental disorder at the time of a crime does not by itself mean that the person was insane; the defendant also had to be unable to know right from wrong" (Comer, 2005).

Another issue of mental incompetence comes in the form of the aforementioned capability to aid in one's own defense. Should an individual be found incompetent to aid in their own trial by reason of mental instability, the court may opt to institutionalize said individual until they are found competent and capable to aid in their own defense and stand trial for the accused crimes.

So how exactly do courts and lawyers determine the mental state of defendants and clients? This is where the psychologists come in. After some years of debate over the M'Naghten rule and the development of several other tests and definitions by which to win an insanity case, the American Psychiatric Association, in 1983, recommended a return to the M'Naghten test or rule. Previous tests had brought about inability to control one's actions, alcohol or substance dependence as reasons why an individual could be ruled "insane" at the time of the crime and thus not guilty by reason of insanity. However, both the Irresistible Impulse Test and the Durham Test, those which had set he aforementioned as reasons for an insanity ruling, were tossed out.

Another test came about before the M'Naghten was once again embraced by the legal community. The American Law Institute Test came about in the mid 1950s and stated that individuals were not "criminally responsible if at the time of the crime they had a mental disorder or defect that prevented them from knowing right from wrong or from being able to control themselves and follow the law" (Comer, 2005). Obviously this was a combination of the aforementioned tests, the Irresistible Impulse Test, the Durham Test, and the 1843 M'Naghten. While the American Law Institute Test (ALI) is still used in some state courts, all federal and the remaining state courts utilize the M'Naghten test instead of the more liberal and flexible ALI (Comer, 2005). *

While the court is ultimately able to make the decision on an insanity plea, a psychologist is utilized in order to make a recommendation. The psychologist or psychiatrist conducts an interview and the necessary test and then makes their recommendation to the appropriate legal authority. Some mental health professionals are also retained for the defense or prosecution of the defendant. Most often these aforementioned individuals are forensic psychologists and psychiatrists, individuals who deal with the intersection of law and psychology/psychiatry. This category includes testifying at trials, evaluating witnesses, and putting together or relating profiles to crimes and criminals (American Board of Forensic Psychology, Inc., 2008).

*State courts of Idaho, Montana, and Utah do not use an insanity test as they do no allow insanity pleas at all (Comer, 2005. & State law for Utah, Montana, and Idaho).

References:

American Board of Forensic Psychology, Inc. (2008). Forensic Psychology. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from http://www.wcupa.edu/_ACADEMICS/sch_cas.psy/Career_Paths/Forensic/Career08.htm

Comer, R., J. (2005). Fundamentals of Abnormal Psychology, 4^th Edition. New York. Worth Publishers.