NCJ Number
112378
Journal
Pepperdine Law Review Volume: 15 Issue: 1 Dated: (1987) Pages: 1-32
Date Published
1987
Length
33 pages
Annotation
In many jurisdictions, mental illness can still be admitted as evidence in attempting to negate mens rea even though such mental illness does not meet the requirements of traditional or newly tightened insanity defenses.
Abstract
Persons dedicated to public safety as well as the rights of the defendant take contrary positions on this issue. Those taking a prosecution approach want to exclude evidence of mental illness. Defense attorneys, some treatment-oriented mental health professionals, and others with similar interests want such evidence admitted. Beyond this there is a divergence of opinion on whether it is constitutional to preclude such evidence. In this controversy, there are a number of relevant issues in need of clarification. Tightening or abolishing the insanity defense does not preclude the use of extensive mental disorder testimony and evidence on responsibility issues in criminal cases. Federal law, American Bar Association standards, and legislation in many jurisdictions appear to leave the mens rea route for avoiding the insanity defense wide open. Further, confusion exists regarding the interpretation of the mens rea model: it may be given a strict interpretation that admits only evidence that the defendant did not entertain the requisite mental state; or a diminished capacity interpretation. Finally, the controversy highlights areas of fundamental problems between mental health professionals and the legal community. 204 footnotes.