We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
INSANITY STEP ZERO: A MODERN APPLICATION OF M'NAGHTENS QUESTION FOUR TEST.
- Authors
Mills, Michael G.
- Abstract
Defendants sulfering from delusion currently are subject to inequitable treatment in our criminal justice system. They can genuinely believe, due to a delusion, that a person right in *ont Of them has a gun and is about to kill them. Acting in what they believe is self-defense, they can draw a gun and kill their would-be assailant. Many in their same situation, facing what they believe to be an imminent threat against their l(fe with no ability to escape, would do the exact same thing. In fact, the law in all fifty states would allow a defendant actually facing such a threat to raise a self-defense claim. However, under many states' laws, the defendant sldfering from delusions still will be found guilty of murder. Mistake Qf fact doctrines generally require mistakes to be reasonable, so the defendant will not be entitled to a se(fdefense claim because delusions are inherently unreasonable. Yet only seven states have insanity defenses that explicitly account for delusions. Thus, the jury may still jind them guilty under that jurisdiction's insanity test. This creates a paradox: defendants are too insane to qually for the mistake of fact doctrine, ijet too sane to escape punishment under the insanity defense. Tha paradox has become increasingly prevalent in recent years, as many jurisdictions seek to abolish or mod(fil their insanity tests-often leaving defendants suffering from delusions behind in the process. This Note proposes a novel test to Jix this paradox: the step zero test. It is built off the fourth answer the Justices gave in thefamous M'Naghten Case. While that answer has largely fallen to historical obscurity, my proposed test reuives that answer and repurposes it to solve this modem problem. The test operates as follows: the jury is to accept the facts as the defendant in their delusional state believed them to exist. Accepting those facts as true, if the defendant would otherwise have an affirmative defense, the jury is required to acquit by reason of insanity. This instruction would be given before any other insanity instruction. After the jury pedorms this test, they would proceed to the jurisdiction's usual insanity test. Requiring the jury to go through this preliminary step to any insanity defense ensures that defendants suffering*om delusions are, at a bare minimum, treated equally before the law as everybody else.
- Subjects
INSANITY defense; CRIMINAL justice system; INSANITY (Law); PARADOX
- Publication
Cornell Law Review, 2022, Vol 107, Issue 4, p1173
- ISSN
0010-8847
- Publication type
Article