Editing Insanity defense (section)

==Application==
The defense of insanity takes different guises in different jurisdictions, and there are differences between legal systems with regard to the availability, definition and [[burden of proof (law)|burden of proof]], as well as the role of judges, juries and medical experts. In jurisdictions where there are [[jury trial]]s, it is common for the decision about the sanity of an accused to be determined by the jury.

===Incompetency and mental illness===
An important distinction to be made is the difference between [[Competency evaluation (law)|competency]] and criminal responsibility.
*The issue of competency is whether a defendant is able to adequately assist their attorney in preparing a defense, make informed decisions about trial strategy and whether to plead guilty, accept a plea agreement or plead not guilty. This issue is dealt with in [[UK]] law as "[[fitness to plead]]".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/mentally_disordered_offenders/|title=Mentally Disordered Offenders - The Crown Prosecution Service|website=cps.gov.uk|access-date=2 February 2018|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171115112901/http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/mentally_disordered_offenders/|archive-date=15 November 2017}}</ref>

Competency largely deals with the defendant's present condition, while criminal responsibility addresses the condition at the time the crime was committed.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.michiganprosecutor.org/alger/Articles/Criminal%2520Responsibility.doc |title=Archived copy |access-date=2015-06-25 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101229110609/http://michiganprosecutor.org/alger/Articles/Criminal%20Responsibility.doc |archive-date=2010-12-29 }}</ref>

In the United States, a trial in which the insanity defense is invoked typically involves the testimony of [[psychiatrist]]s or [[psychologist]]s who will, as [[expert witness]]es, present opinions on the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offense.

Therefore, a person whose mental disorder is not in dispute is determined to be sane if the court decides that despite a "mental illness" the defendant was responsible for the acts committed and will be treated in court as a normal defendant. If the person has a mental illness and it is determined that the mental illness interfered with the person's ability to determine right from wrong (and other associated criteria a jurisdiction may have) and if the person is willing to plead guilty or is proven guilty in a court of law, some jurisdictions have an alternative option known as either a '''Guilty but Mentally Ill''' ('''GBMI''') or a '''Guilty but Insane''' verdict. The GBMI verdict is available as an alternative to, rather than in lieu of, a "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict.<ref>{{Cite book
|last1=Bonnie
|first1=Richard J.
|last2 =Coughlin
|first2 =Anne M.
|title=Criminal Law
|publisher=The Foundation Press
|year=1997
|location=Westbury, NY
|page=537
|isbn=1-56662-448-7}}</ref> [[Michigan]] (1975) was the first state to create a GBMI verdict, after two prisoners released after being found NGRI committed violent crimes within a year of release, one raping two women and the other killing his wife.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Smith & Hall|title=Evaluating Michigan's Guilty but Mentally Ill Verdict: An Empirical Study Study|url=https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2016&context=mjlr|access-date=27 Jul 2020|website=repository.law.umich.edu|page=82}}</ref>

===Temporary insanity===
The notion of '''temporary insanity''' argues that a defendant ''was'' insane during the commission of a crime, but they later regained their sanity after the criminal act was carried out. This legal defense developed in the 19th century and became especially associated with the defense of individuals committing  [[crimes of passion]]. The defense was first successfully used by [[United States House of Representatives|U.S. Congressman]] [[Daniel Sickles]] of [[New York (state)|New York]] in 1859 after he had killed his wife's lover, [[Philip Barton Key II]].<ref name="NYT_1881">{{cite news |url=https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/harp/1210.html |title=On This Day: December 10, 1881 |last=Kennedy |first=Robert C. |date=2001 |work=The New York Times |access-date=June 18, 2018}}</ref> The temporary insanity defense was unsuccessfully pleaded by [[Charles J. Guiteau]] who assassinated president [[James A. Garfield]] in 1881.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/harp/1210.html | title=On This Day: December 10, 1881 }}</ref>

===Mitigating factors and diminished capacity===
The [[United States Supreme Court]] (in ''[[Penry v. Lynaugh]]'') and the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit]] (in ''[[Bigby v. Dretke]]'') have been clear in their decisions that [[jury instructions]] in death penalty cases that do not ask about [[mitigating factor]]s regarding the defendant's [[mental health]] violate the defendant's [[Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Eighth Amendment]] rights, saying that the jury is to be instructed to consider mitigating factors when answering unrelated questions. This ruling suggests specific explanations to the jury are necessary to weigh mitigating factors.

Diminished responsibility or diminished capacity can be employed as a mitigating factor or partial defense to crimes. In the United States, diminished capacity is applicable to more circumstances than the insanity defense. The Homicide Act 1957 is the statutory basis for the defense of diminished responsibility in England and Wales, whereas in Scotland it is a product of case law. The number of findings of diminished responsibility has been matched by a fall in unfitness to plead and insanity findings.<ref name=walker /> A plea of diminished capacity is different from a plea of insanity in that "reason of insanity" is a full defense while "diminished capacity" is merely a plea to a lesser crime.<ref name="Cornell">{{cite web|title=Diminished capacity, as opposed to not guilty by reason of insanity|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/insane/capacity.html|work=Legal Information Institute: Federal Law|publisher=Cornell University Law School|access-date=19 December 2011|author=Legal Information Institute|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111008212843/http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/insane/capacity.html|archive-date=8 October 2011}}</ref>

===Intoxication===
Depending on jurisdiction, circumstances and crime, [[Substance intoxication|intoxication]] may be a defense, a mitigating factor or an aggravating factor. However, most jurisdictions differentiate between '''voluntary intoxication''' and '''involuntary intoxication'''.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intoxication | title=Intoxication }}</ref> In some cases, intoxication (usually involuntary intoxication) may be covered by the insanity defense.<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17592162/ | pmid=17592162 | year=2007 | last1=Feix | first1=J. | last2=Wolber | first2=G. | title=Intoxication and settled insanity: A finding of not guilty by reason of insanity | journal=The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law | volume=35 | issue=2 | pages=172–182 }}</ref>

===Withdrawal or refusal of defense===
Several cases have ruled that persons found not guilty by reason of insanity may not withdraw the defense in a [[habeas]] petition to pursue an alternative, although there have been exceptions in other rulings.{{Citation needed|date=December 2015}} In [[Colorado v. Connelly]], 700 A.2d 694 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997), the petitioner who had originally been found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed for ten years to the jurisdiction of a Psychiatric Security Review Board, filed a [[pro se]] writ of ''[[habeas corpus]]'' and the court vacated his insanity acquittal. He was granted a new trial and found guilty of the original charges, receiving a prison sentence of 40 years.<ref>{{cite journal
 |year        = 2005
 |page        = 126
 |author      = Nwokike, Jerome
 |issue       = 1
 |volume      = 33
 |url         = http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/126?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&minscore=5000&resourcetype=HWCIT
 |title       = Federal Insanity Acquittees
 |journal     = Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
 |access-date  = 2007-10-19
 |url-status     = live
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20071229225408/http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/126?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&minscore=5000&resourcetype=HWCIT
 |archive-date = 2007-12-29
}}</ref>

In the [[landmark case]] of ''[[Frendak v. United States]]'' in 1979, the court ruled that the insanity defense cannot be imposed upon an unwilling defendant if an intelligent defendant voluntarily wishes to forgo the defense.<ref>{{cite book
|author=Irving B. Weiner
|year=2003
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jk8-b9AwmJgC&q=frendak+v+united+states&pg=PA363
|title=Handbook of Psychology
|publisher=Wiley
|page=363
|isbn=978-0-471-17669-5
|access-date=2008-01-01
|author-link=Irving B. Weiner
}}
</ref>