General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums6-3 Supreme Court decision today on insanity defenses
The Court limited the rights of criminal defendants and declared that states can bar them from using insanity defenses. 6-3 decision, Kagan sided with the conservatives.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/23/politics/supreme-court-insanity-defense/index.html
still_one
(92,366 posts)Polybius
(15,467 posts)It just means that states have a right to decide if they want to have insanity pleas or not. I'm pretty sure NY still has it.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)still_one
(92,366 posts)Polybius
(15,467 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)The most common is something like this: to be found not guilty, the defense has to show that the act was a direct consequence of the mental disease.
Some states have an older and broader definition, that goes something like this: to be found not guilty, the defense has to show that the accused did not understand the moral implications of his action.
If I'm reading this right, the Court just ruled that states that have that older rule (called the "M'Naghten rule" ) don't have to keep it, and can go to the "direct consequence" definition if they want to.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)States that use the Durham rule wouldn't seem to be impacted.
Archae
(46,341 posts)I read somewhere that less than 1% of those using the insanity defense are successful.
So this won't affect many cases.
But thugs will still try.
Polybius
(15,467 posts)His dissent was very vocal.
Polybius
(15,467 posts)Not that it would have changed the outcome, but I'm very curious and concerned.