Question

NEED HELP ASAP!! for FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY using textbook "Forensic Psychology by Matthew Huss 2nd edition"

Differentiate insanity from competency and civil commitment. Then, describe the major legal standards for insanity.

Answer 1

In movies and books, the phrases “not competent to stand trial” and “not guilty by reason of insanity” are thrown around quite frequently. But what are the differences between competency and sanity? Are they interchangeable?

The answer is no—the two concepts play significantly different roles in court. Competency determines whether a defendant will be able to appear at trial and understand the proceedings; sanity determines whether a defendant will be held responsible for his criminal actions. Therefore, a defendant who is competent to stand trial may nonetheless be found “not guilty by reason of insanity.” However, if a defendant is found not competent to stand trial, he will never be found guilty (or not guilty, for that matter) because no trial would be held in the first place. In other words, you can be declared legally competent and also legally insane. However, you cannot be declared legally insane unless you are also legally competent.

Competency is determined by whether the defendant can understand the nature and consequences of the criminal proceedings against him. Specifically, the Supreme Court has held that the defendant must (1) have the sufficient present ability to consult with his or her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; and (2) he or she must have a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceeding against him or her.

Meanwhile, the definition of insanity varies between states and concerns the criminal acts allegedly committed by the defendant. (Read this blog post to learn about the different definitions of insanity.) For example, some states determine insanity by whether the defendant understood the nature and quality of his acts or did not know that his acts were wrong. Other states have different definitions. Some states do not have an insanity defence at all.

Decision Maker: Competency is determined by the judge. Insanity is determined by the jury.

The timing of Determination: Competency is determined before the beginning of the trial. Insanity, on the other hand, is determined at the end of the trial with the verdict.

Raising the issue: Competency can be raised as an issue by a party or based on the judge’s observations of the defendant. If there is a reasonable basis to believe competency is at issue, the court has an absolute duty to order an evaluation. Based on the outcome of the evaluation, the judge will determine whether the defendant is competent to stand trial. Insanity, on the other hand, is an affirmative defence that must be pled by the defendant.

The major legal standards for insanity is Model Penal Code test, provides for legal insanity that serves as a compromise between the Strict M'Naghten Rule [determine whether a person accused of a crime was sane at the time of its commission and, therefore, criminally responsible for the wrongdoing] , the lenient Durham ruling [ defendant cannot be convicted of a crime if the act was the result of a mental disease or defect at the time of the incident] , and the irresistible impulse test [in this case some sort of insanity, in which the defendant argues that they should not be held criminally liable for their actions that broke the law, because they could not control those actions, even if they knew them to be wrong.​].