Who determines if a person is "insane" when they committed a crime?

Answer 1

The jury determines if they were reasonably capable of understanding their actions
It is based on testimony from professionals and people that know them

It is called - Guilty but Insane

Answer 2

Depends on the state where it happened and the type of insanity being claimed.

In most states, there's a competency hearing The Court determines if the person is able to understand the charges against him/her and is able to participate in his/her defense. That's the first level of determination. The judge will hear testimony from experts for both sides and decide based on the evidence.

The second level is if the person pleads insanity. In some states, such as Michigan, there is a plea available of guilty by reason of insanity. In that case, there is a judge who hears the evidence and determines the appropriate level of confinement for the individual (remember "The Burning Bed" or Jeffrey Dahmer? That's what was at play in those cases.) Experts for both sides will present their findings and recommendations, but the judge or a jury decides if the person is indeed insane. Either way, the plea is a guilty plea.

The next level is a jury finding of insanity or mental defect. Some states only have a standard of not guilty by reason of insanity. There's a full jury or bench trial with all the evidence presented and the judge will give jury instructions that the jury can find the defendent Guilty, Not Guilty or Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity or Mental Defect.


Regardless of the state and the offense, the psychologists don't determine insanity. They present their opinions, but it's the Court that decides if the person is insane or not.

Answer 3

The Jury.

Most American jurisdictions follow the M'Naghten rule which requires that to find a person not guilty by reason of insanity "...at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, arising from a disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong."

There is no specific requirement of proof but the assertion that a person was insane at the time of the commission of the crime is an affirmative defense that must be pled and proved by the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

In the end, the matter is determined by the Jury on the basis of whatever evidence is presented.

As a practical matter it is likely that no jury would accept evidence that did not include the testimony of a mental health care professional.

Answer 4

M'Naghten Rules

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%27Naghten_Rules

The M'Naghten Rules are used to establish insanity as an excuse to potential criminal liability, but the definitional criteria establish insanity in the legal and not the psychological sense. The guidelines were formulated by the House of Lords in M'Naghten's Case (1843) 10 C & F 200.[1] In some countries, when the Rules are satisfied, the accused is subject to a special verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity", and the sentence is either a mandatory and indeterminate period of treatment in a secure hospital facility or at the discretion of the court depending on the country. The defence is recognised in Australia, Canada, England and Wales, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland, and most U.S. states with the exception of Montana, Idaho, and Utah.



For more detail, click the link

Answer 5

The courts.

The courts will make a decision on the basis of psychiatric and other expert testimony to determine if the person knew the difference between right and wrong and had the capacity to form intent to commit the crime.

I think the 'insanity' defence is a joke; people who get caught with serious crimes often use it because they suddenly realize the seriousness of what they'd done and do not want to face the consequences.

Answer 6

Greetings:

The short answer is, the jury...and here's why:

Both the prosecution and the defence - in forensic psychiatry - have their respective "guess-perts" give evidence and cross-examined.

The jury listens to both sides then decides which to believe. So the jury then determine if the person is "insane" or not when they committed the crime, and give their verdict accordingly.

(If you REALLY want to know how much these forensic psychiatry guess-perts are out to lunch, do yourself a favour and check out the following: Karl Krause, "Freud on Psychoanalysis", and Thomas Szasz, "The Myth of Mental Illness". You're GUARANTEED a gut-splitter!)

Peace,
Gondarite

Answer 7

A licensed Psychologist is hired by the lawyer representing the person who committed a crime. Once their evalution has been made, then they present it to the lawyer who hired them. If it helps the defense lawyer, he will present it in court. Also the prosecuting attorney may deside to hire his own licensed Psychologist to argue the results of the other Psychologist.

Answer 8

Basically there isnt just 1 person who decides, its several. The dr or drs who study the case, forensics, and the jury who ultimately has the final say, but all in all, its an entire group of people in the judicial system working together

Answer 9

usually before trial several "experts" are called in to testify.
Of course the opposing sides (Defense attorneys and procecuting attorneys) will have opposite opinions. Any documentation of prior treatment would be helpful for the defense. It's tough to get the "Guilty by reason of insanity" plea to pan out.

Answer 10

At trial, everyone is presumed to be criminally responsible unless the judge is convinced otherwise, on the balance of probabilities. This will usually require the testimony of one or more psychiatrists.