Crazy defense is rare in Texas. In fact, it is introduced in only about one per cent of all criminal cases. Of the cases in which the defence is raised, even fewer are successful, particularly in jury trials. Although you cannot get a prison sentence, you may still be able to spend mandatory time in a psychiatric hospital or “psychiatric ward”. In the past, state psychiatric institutions were called “lunatic asylums.” This term is no longer used today. In some cases, it can be worse than being convicted and going to jail. In several states and at the federal level, a defendant found not guilty of mental illness is automatically committed to a treatment facility until it is determined that mental health has been restored (18 U.S.C., 2010). This is also the approach of the Model Penal Code. As stated in article 4.08, paragraph 1, of the Model Penal Code: “If an accused is acquitted of mental illness or lack of spirit which precludes responsibility, the court shall order that he be entrusted to the care of the Commissioner for Mental Health [Public Health] for placement in an appropriate facility for custody, care and treatment.” The implementation of this test was initially considered an advanced development.
In particular, the Durham Rule moved away from legal formalisms and focused on scientific and psychological assessments and evidence. This approach emphasized expert statements and largely left it to the jury to follow the expert opinions submitted. As long as a professional concluded that the defendant suffered from a mental illness, the finding of mental illness would likely follow. However, problems soon arose and the Durham test fell out of favor. First, the test was often successful and deprived the jury of its decision-making role. The determination of insanity was left to the discretionary decisions of trained professionals, who were largely free in their methodological approach. The lack of a clear definition of key terms such as “mental illness or mental disability” exacerbated this problem and led to inconsistencies, as different professionals came to different conclusions. In addition, the test proved to be too inclusive.
Under the “product” approach, defendants could not be convicted of mental illness, even if they understood and controlled their actions at the time of the offence. For these individuals, punishment may be more appropriate, as its deterrent effect remains intact. Therefore, the same continuous circuit that introduced the test in 1954 rejected the test in 1972 when it decided the Brawner case. New Hampshire is now the only jurisdiction that uses a test similar to Durham`s rule. A defendant convicted of mental illness in Texas cannot be committed to a mental hospital for longer than the maximum penalty of the crime. For example, if the maximum sentence for the crime was 10 years, that is the maximum length of time they could be committed. Subsequently, the court loses jurisdiction and the defendant can only be bound under civil law. Daniel M`Naghten was a carpenter who believed he was the target of a plot involving the Pope and British Prime Minister Robert Peel. In 1843 M`Naghten went to 10 Downing Street to ambush Peel, but accidentally shot Peel`s secretary. During the trial that followed, several psychiatrists testified that M`Naghten was delusional.
A jury agreed and found him not guilty of mental illness. The second element of § 4.01 includes an analysis based on the will. This aspect of the insane standard of the Model Penal Code reflects the theoretical basis for the irresistible impulse test. In this case, the Code states that criminal liability is not justified if a defendant “cannot adapt his conduct to the requirements of the law.” This focus on compliance aims to care for people who are aware of their illegal act but are unable to control themselves due to mental illness or disability. The inclusion of this deliberate analysis alongside a cognitive analysis represents the progressive nature of the insane norm developed in the Model Penal Code. Arianna was diagnosed with paranoia. Most mental health experts agree that people affected by paranoia mistakenly believe that the human population is “here to catch it.” Arianna works under the direct supervision of Nora, who has a physical condition called “zander”. Noras Zander gives the impression that she looks to the side when she talks to people. Arianna is gradually convinced that Nora is passing secret messages to her colleagues when she talks to Arianna. Arianna is really afraid that Nora will tell her colleagues to kill her and she decides to defend herself. Arianna brings a gun to work one day, and when Nora starts talking to her about her penchant for long lunches, Arianna pulls the gun out of her cabin and shoots and kills Nora. Normally, a defendant must have a full mental assessment as a first step when claiming insanity as a legal defense.
The defense of irresistible impulsive madness complements M`Naghten in general, so the focus is on the (cognitive) consciousness of the accused and the will of the accused (ability to control behavior).
