who determines wheather someone is insane , and how often does the insanity defence lead to an equittal?

Question

When someone claims to be insane while on trial, who determines that they are, the judge, the jury??

Answer 1

the psychiatrist...

series of tests will determine whether they are insane or not... this is then proven to the jury / judge / defense lawyers / plaintiff lawyers

Answer 2

It's a multi-step process, if the defense is raised.

First one or more medical experts interview the defendant, and prepare a report. Then a motion hearing is held in front of the judge, before the trial even starts.

The judge determines, based on the evidence presented, whether there is sufficient evidence to submit the question to the jury. If the judge finds that there is not sufficient evidence, as a matter of law, to sustain the insanity defense, then the judge can either exclude all evidence relating to the supposed insanity, or simply refuse to allow the jury to acquit on the insanity grounds.

If the question goes to the jury (during trial), then the jury makes the determination of whether the defense has been proven. Unlike normal elements of the crime, the burden is only the defense to prove that the defendant is insane, not on the prosecution to disprove it.

The standard varies, but generally either requires an actual inability to control one's actions, or a lack of conscious awarenes and understanding of one's actions. Both are very difficult standards, and succeed less than one percent of the time. If fact, not all states even allow the insanity defense, in any form.

So, the short answer is -- the judge can say no and refuse to allow the question to be raised, but the jury has the final determination if the judge allows them to consider it.

Answer 3

Ultimately, it is the jury. If you are using an insanity plea, your attorney will bring to testify doctors and psychiatrists to "prove" your insanity. The prosecution will bring the same to prove otherwise. The case then goes to the jury who may or may not find you not guilty by reason of insanity.

Answer 4

Most often, it's some liberal activist judge. The instance of Andrea Yate, in particular, was a disgrace.

Insanity is rarely if ever an excusable defence, because you could argue that everyone is "insane," otherwise they couldn't have done it if they were sane. That could include Hitler.

Now, they simply ascribe a poltically correct "disease" to the person.

Answer 5

Each state has different laws on this. Where I'm from, a person can be found Guilty but Mentally Ill, which means he still serves time. If he or she is not competent to stand trial, they're sent to a state mental hospital and don't go to trial.

Answer 6

Thankfully, most insanity defenses do not work.
A criminal, ruthless, self-centered mind does not make one insane just evil.
Legal insanity is based on whether or not you knew your act was wrong when you committed the act. If that is the case, why try to cover up the act?