The Insanity Defense: An Overview and Legislative Proposals

This report will discuss the insanity defense as used in the federal courts. It will briefly trace the history of the evolution of that defense from its earliest formulation to the version used in the John Hinckley case, and will provide, in summary form, descriptive analysis of various pieces of Legislation to change federal law with regard to the substantive definition of the defense, the allocation of the burden of persuasion when the defense is invoked, and procedures following the successful use of the defense.

0 -z -b . c;ongressiona~Research Service The Library of Congress THE INSANITY DEFENSE: AN OVERVIEW AND LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS COMPLIMENTS OF Gene Snyder C a t h e r i n e Marion A m e r i c a n Law D i v i s i o n July 19, 1 9 8 2 THE: INSAi??ITY DEFENSE: AN OVERVIEW AND LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS INTRODUCTION T h i s r e p o r t w i l l d i s c u s s t h e i n s a n i t y d e f e n s e a s used i n t h e f e d e r a l courts. It w i l l b r i e f l y t r a c e t h e h i s t o r y of t h e e v o l u t i o n of t h a t d e f e n s e t from i t s e a r l i e s t f o r m u l a t i o n t o t h e v e r s i o n used in t h e John Hinckley c a s e , and w i l l p r o v i d e , i n summary form, d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s of v a r i o u s p i e c e s of L e g i s l a t i o n t o change f e d e r a l law w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e s u b s t a ' n t i v e d e f i n i t i o n of t h e d e f e n s e , t h e a l l o c a t i o n of t h e burden of p e r s u a s i o n when t h e d e f e n s e i s i n voked, and p r o c e d u r e s f o l l o w i n g t h e s u c c e s s f u l u s e of t h e d e f e n s e . The Hinckley t r i a l o p e r a t e d under a l e g a l d e f i n i t i o n of t h e i n s a n i t y def e n s e t h a t h a s evolved through j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s . . I t s b a s i c f o r m u l a t i o n p a r a l - l e l s a d e f i n i t i o n proposed by t h e American Law ~ n s t i t u t ei n i t s Model P e n a l A person i s n o t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c r i m i n a l conduct i f a t t h e ,time of such conduct a s a r e s u l t of m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t he l a c k s s u b s t a n t i a l c a p a c i t y t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e c r i m i n a l i t y [ w r o n g f u l n e s s ] of h i s cond u c t o r t o conform h i s conduct t o ' t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of law. A.L.Z., Model P e n a l Code, 54.01, Proposed O f f i c i a l D r a f t (May 1 4 , 1962) The Hinckley jury- i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e a l l o c a t i o n of t h e burden of p e r s u a s i o n f o l l o w s t h e c u r r e n t law on t h i s i s s u e i n a l l of the! f e d e r a l c o u r t s : When t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s i n t r o d u c e d a s u f f i c i e n t quantum of e v i d e n c e on t h e i s s u e of i n s a n i t y he i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t i f t h e j u r y h a s a r e a s o n a b l e doubt a s t o h i s s a n i t y t h e y a r e t o r e t u r n a v e r d i c t of n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n of i n s a n i t y . I n one r e s p e c t , however, t h e H i n c k l e y t r i a l was n o t t y p i c a l of a s i m i l a r proceeding i n o t h e r f e d e r a l c o u r t s . When J o h n H i n c k l e y was found n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n of i n s a n i t y , t h e t r i a l judge was empowered, u n d e r a D i s t r i c t of Columbia s t a t u t e , D O C . Code, t i t . 24 $301, t o conmit him t o c u s t o d y i n S a i n t E l i z a b e t h ' s H o s p i t a l p e n d i n g a h e a r i n g on t h e i s s u e of w h e t h e r h e c o n s t - i t u t e d s u c h a d a n g e r t o h i m s e l f o r t o o t h e t s as t o w a r r a n t c i v i l commitment. s t a t u t e , a p p l i c a b l e t o d e f e n d a n t s t r i e d i n D.C., Except f o r t h a t D . C . t h e r e i s no o t h e r commitment ' a u t h o r i t y f o r f e d e r a l c o u r t s c o n f r o n t i n g d e f e n d a n t s a c q u i t t e d by r e a s o n of i n 1/ sanity. - I. THE FOUR TESTS The i n s a n i t y d e f e n s e p e r t a i n s t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e of mind d u r i n g t h e \ commission of t h e o f f e n s e . It i s t o be d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t h e s e p a r a t e i s s u e / of h i s competency t o s t a n d t r i a l , which i n v o l v e s t h e s t a t e of mind a t t r i a l . The E n g l i s h House of L o r d s d e v e l o p e d one of t h e e a r l i e s t v e r s i o n s of t h e i n s a n i t y d e f e n s e i n t h e M'Naughten Case of 1843. The t e s t , s t i l l u s e d i n many S t a t e s provides t h a t an ac! 7- eused i s not c ~ m i n a l l yre$ohsible if, at the, time of committing the act, he was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of! the mixd, a s not to know the nature and quality; of the act he was doing, or if he did know i t ! -. that .wrong.he dicl not l a o w he was doing what was1I Thus, two e l e m e n t s must be p r e s e n t f o r a s u c c e s s f u l i n s a n i t y d e f e n s e u n d e r this test. The d e f e n d a n t must have had a m e n t a l d i s o r d e r a t t h e time of t h e a c t , a n d , as a r e s u l t of t h i s d i s o r d e r he must n o t have been aware of what he S e e S. -1/ - Rep. 97-307 a t 1,200, 9 7 t h Cong., 1st S e s s . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . was d o i n g , o r i f he was a w a r e , h e must n o t h a v e been a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t what he was d o i n g w a s wrong. More s i m p l y p u t , f o r t h i s d e f e n s e t o be u s e d s u c c e s s f u l l y , t h e d e f e n d a n t must show t h a t h e c o u l d n o t t e l l r i g h t f r o m wrong b e c a u s e of h i s m e n t a l d i s e a s e . Many problems of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n e x i s t w i t h t h e M'Naughten R u l e . F o r ex- ample, t h e r e h a s been d i s a g r e e m e n t o v e r how much t h e word "know" s h o u l d encompass. The d e b a t e r a g e s o v e r w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d be o n l y m i n i m a l l y aware of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of h i s a c t s o r w h e t h e r h e must a l s o u n d e r s t a n d t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of h i s a c t s b e f o r e t h e MINaughten R u l e would n o t a p p l y . 2/ Much c r i t i c i s m h a s been l e v e l e d a g a i n s t t h e M'Naughten defense: . Many f e e l t h a t i t i s o u t d a t e d s i n c e i t o n l y f o c u s e s on one a s p e c t of human n a t u r e , t h a t i s , knowledge, o r i n t e l l e c t u a l i m p a i r m e n t . S i n c e p s y c h i a t r y now r e c o g n i z e s ' t h a t knowledge i s n o t t h e s o l e d e t e r m i n a n t of a p e r s o n ' s a c t i o n s , t h e r e i s some opinion t h a t a n i n s a n i t y defense should a l s o c o n s i d e r t h e v o l i t i o n a l acts, o r c o n d u c t , of a p e r s o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , M'Naughten r e c o g n i z e s no v a r i a n c e i n de- g r e e s of i n c a p a c i t y . The d e f e n d a n t e i t h e r knows r i g h t f r o m wrong o r h e d o e s b not. A s a r e s u l t of t h i s d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , some f e d e r a l c o u r t s added a " c o n t r o l " 3/ t e s t t o be u s e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h MINaughten. This addition is o f t e n c a l l e d - t h e i r r e s i s t i b l e i m p u l s e t e s t ; t h a t i s , one w i l l n o t be g u i l t y by r e a s o n of i n s a n i t y i f , b e c a u s e of a m e n t a l d i s e a s e , h e was n o t a b l e t o c o n t r o l h i s a c t i o n s . 2 / S e e L a f a v e and S c o t t , C r i m i n a l Law, p. 280-283 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ; S e n a t e Committee on t h z ~ n c i a r y . R e p o r t on t h e C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e C o d i f i c a t i o n R e v i s i o n a n d Reform Act of 1 9 7 4 , Committee P r i n t , 93d C o n g r e s s , 2d s e s s i o n . p. 101. See f o r -3 / - example D a v i s v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 165 U.S. 373 ( 1 8 9 7 ) . CRS -4 Thus, many p e o p l e who would n o t have q u a l i f i e d f o r t h e i n s a n i t y d e f e n s e u n d e r H'Naughten ( b e c a u s e t h e y c o u l d d i s t i n g u i s h between r i g h t and wrong) c o u l d be judged i n s a n e u n d e r t h e a d d i t i o n a l t e s t b e c a u s e t h e y c o u l d n o t c o n t r o l t h e i r wrongful a c t i o n . The U n i t e d S t a t e s Court of Appeals f o r t h e D i s t r i c t of Columbia r r e a t e d i t s own i n s a n i t y d e f e n s e f o r u s e i n f e d e r a l t r i a l s i n Durham v. U n i t e d s t a k e s , 214 F.2d 862 (D.C. C i r . 1954). The Durham R u l e p r o v i d e s t h a t "an a c c u s e d i s n o t c r i m i n a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e i f h i s u n l a w f u l a c t w a s t h e p r o d u c t of a m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r mental d e f e c t . " 214 F.2d a t 874-75. Despite the r e l a t i v e simplicity - Rather, its use w a s 4/ r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t of Columbia C i r c u i t u n t i l i t s abandonment i n 1972. of t h i s r u l e , i t was n o t a d o p t e d by o t h e r c i r c u i t c o u r t s . >, - -\ One e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s l i m i t e d u s e is t h a t t h e r u l e , i n i t s s i m p l i c i t y , o f f e r e d no g u i d e l i n e s o r s t a n d a r d s t o t h e j u r y . This l e d t o the f e a r t h a t l a r g e numbers of c r i m i n a l o f f e n d e r s would be a c q u i t t e d on i n s a n i t y g r o u n d s . I n 1972, t h e D i s t r i c t o f Columbia j o i n e d t h e o t h e r c i r c u i t s which had 5/ a d o p t e d t h e A.L.f.'s v e r s i o n of t h e i n s a n i t y d e f e n s e . - ( I ) A person is not r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c r i m i n a l conduct ' i f a t t h e t i m e of s u c h c o n d u c t as a r e s u l t of m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t he l a c k s s u b s t a n t i a l c a p a c i t y e i t h e r t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e c r i m i n a l i t y [ w r o n g f u l n e s s ] of h i s cond u c t o r t o conform h i s c o n d u c t t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of law. .-- (2) As u s e d i n ' t h i s A r t i c l e , t h e terms ' m e n t a l d i s e a s e o r d e f e c t ' do n o t i n c l u d e a n a b n o r m a l i t y m a n i f e s t e d o n l y by r e p e a t e d c r i m i n a l o r o t h e r w i s e a n t i - s o c i a l c o n d u c t . 4 / I n U n i t e d ' S t a t e s v . Brawner, 4 7 1 F.2d 969 (D.C. C i r . 1 9 7 2 ) , t h e U.S. c o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o r t h e D i s t r i c t of Columbia a d o p t e d t h e t e s t p r o p o s e d by t h e A . L . 1 . i n i t s Model P e n a l Code, t h e t e s t u s e d i n t h e H i n c k l e y t r i a l . See Model -5 / - P e n a l Code s 4 . 0 1 ( 1 9 6 2 ) . It combines t h e H t ? J a u g h t e n - - r e c o g n i t i o n t e s t and t h e i r r e s i s t i b l e i m p u l s e - - c o n t r o l test. Because of t h i s d u a l i t y , t h e A.L.I. 6/ by t h e c o u r t s and commentators. The A.L.I. v e r s i o h h a s been t r e a t e d f a v o r a b l y t e s t p r e s e n t s a c h o i c e i n t h e wording of s u b s e c t i o n ( 1 ) . Either * " c r i m i n a l i t y " o r " w r o n g f u l n e s s " c a n be u s e d . A.L.I. Most c i r c u i t c o u r t s t h a t u s e t h e t e s t have a d o p t e d t h e " w r o n g f u l n e s s " m o d i f i c a t i o n . have a d o p t e d t h e A.L.I. Those S t a t e s t h a t t e s t a l s o have f a v o r e d t h e " w r o n g f u l n e s s " v e r s i o n . -7/ ; The M'Naughten problems of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a r e d i m i n i s h e d i n t h i s t e s t by t h e u s e of t h e word " a p p r e c i a t e " r a t h e r t h a n "know." The A.L.I. t e s t is a l s o l e s s s t r i c t t h a n M'Naughten i n t h a t i t d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a c o m p l e t e i m p a i r m e n t of t h e mind b u t r a t h e r m e r e l y a s u b s t a n t i a l i m p a i r m e n t . --- I1 THE CURRENT BILLS 1. -- - "Mens Rea" T e s t 8/ S. 2572 (Sen. Thurmond, May, 1982) S. 818 (Sen. H a t c h , March, 1 9 8 1 ) S. 1558 (Sen. H a t c h , J u l y , 1 9 8 1 ) S. 1630 (Sen. Thurmond, S e p t , 1 9 8 1 ) H.R. 6497 (Rep. McClory, May 1 9 8 1 ) I n t e n t i o n a l c r i m e s (e..g. m u r d e r , b u r g l a r y , r o b b e r y ) a r e d e f i n e d b; rea (state - -- of mind) and a n a c t u s r e a s ( a c t done t h a t makes up t h e c r i m e ) . - s t a t e of mind r e q u i r e d i s a n i n t e n t t o commit t h a t c r i m e . -- - - - a mens The I f e i t h e r of t h e s e a 6 / S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Brawner, 471 F.2d 9 9 9 , 979 (D.C. C i r . 1 9 7 2 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . C h a n d l e r , 393 F.2d 920 ( 2 d C i r . 1 9 6 8 ) ; G o l d s t e i n , The I n s a n i t y D e f e n s e , p. 87 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . See Conn. -7/ - - Gen. S t a t . Ann. 553a-13. -- 8 / A s i n t r o d u c e d , t h i s b i l l c o n t a i n e d a mens r e a d e f i n i t i o n . However, t h i s p o r t i & of t h e b i l l was removed t o a l l o w t h e J u d i c i a r y Committee more t i m e f o r i t s own h e a r i n g s and d e b a t e s on t h e v a r i o u s i n s a n i t y b i l l s . CRS -6 e l e m e n t s , a c t u s . r e a s o r -mens r e a , i s m i s s i n g , t h a n t h e r e can be no l e g a l c u l p a b i l i t y f o r an i n t e n t i o n a l crime. -- It h a s been s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e mens r e a e l e m e n t be u s e d a s a n i n s a n i t y d e f e n s e . F o r example, Sen. Thurmond's b i l l states: "(a) I m ~ m Drrorsr-It Ls a defense to prosecution under any Federal statute that the defendmt. a s a result of mencal &ax or defect. lacked t h e state of m u ~ d requred as an element of the offense charged ,Mental d i s e v c o r defect does not o t h e m e coruuture a defense. 1 . -- The u s u a l example c i t e d t o e x p l a i n t h e mens r e a i n s a n i t y d e f e n s e i s t h a t of a husband who choked h i s w i f e t h i n k i n g t h a t h e was s q u e e z i n g lemons. He h a d 3-r no i n t e n t t o s q u e e z e t h e neck of a human b e i n g , s o h e c o u l d n o t l e g a l l y be h e l d 1 g u i l t y of murder. -- The mens rea t e s t i s much n a r r o w e r t h a n e i t h e r t h e MINaughten--irresistible -. i m p u l s e t e s t o r t h e A.L.I. test. F o r example, t h o s e who know t h e y k i l l e d some- one b u t d i d s o u n d e r a n i n s a n e d e l u s i o n would be found g u i l t y b e c a u s e t h e i n t e n t t o murder w a s t h e r e . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h o s e d e f e n d a n t s who knew what t h e y were do- i n g b u t were u n a b l e t o c o n t r o l t h e i r b e h a v i o r c o u l d n o t be h e l d i n s a n e ,under t h e mens r e a -- test. 2. R e t u r n t o MINaughten S. 2658 (Sen. S p e c t e r , J u n e 1 9 8 2 ) S. '2678 (Sen. Nunn, J u n e 1 9 8 2 ) S. 2658 c a l l s f o r t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s t o u s e t h e MINaughten s t a n d a r d , p l a c e s t h e b u r d e n of proof of i n s a n i t y on t h e d e f e n d a . n t , and l i m i t s p s y c h i a t r i c testimony. S. 2678 r e q u i r e s t h e f e d e r a l c i u r t s burden of proof of i n s a n i t y on t h e d e f e n d a n t . t o u s e MINaughten and p l a c e s t h e It a l s o s e t s up a u t o m a t i c i n s t i - t u t i o n a l commitment p r o c e d u r e s f o r a p e r s o n found n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n of i n s a n ity. I n both of t h e s e b i l l s , MINaughten would be used w i t h o u t t h e " i r r e s i s t i b l e impulse" r i d e r . I n o t h e r words, t h o s e people wha were n o t a b l e t o c o n t r o l t h e i r conduct because of a mental d i s e a s e would be found g u i l t y r a t h e r t h a n i n s a n e . However, t h e MINaughten test under t h e s e b i l l s would n o t be a s r e s t r i c t i v e a s -- t h e mens r e a i n s a n i t y d e f e n s e . MINaughten would s t i l l p r o v i d e an: i n s a n i t y de- f e n s e t o t h o s e persons o p e r a t i n g under i n s a n e d e l u s i o n s who c o u l d . n o t d e l i n e a t e r i g h t from wrong. , I n a f e d e r a l c r i m i n a l t r i a l , t h e d e f e n d a n t i s presumed t o be s a n e . How- e v e r , t h e defendant can p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e t o p u t t h e q u e s t i o n of h i s s a n i t y a t issue i n the trial. The h e a v i e r burden of proof i s t h e n on t h e p r o s e c u t i o n t o show t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t i s i n f a c t sane. . A f a i l u r e i n t h i s burden df proof by .- . t h e p r o s e c u t i o n may r e s u l t i n a c q u i t t a l by r e a s o n of i n s a n i t y . -- These two b i l l s a t t e m p t t o change t h i s r e s u l t by r e q u i r i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t . t o r e t a i n t h e burden of proving i n s a n i t y . F a i l u r e i n t h i s proof of i n s a n i t y by t h e defendant would r e s u l t i n convicfion r a t h e r t h a n a c q u i t t a l , p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n was a b l e t o prove a l l of t h e o t h e r e l e m e n t s of tiie c r i m e . T h i s s h i f t i n g of t h e burden of proving i n s a n i t y t o t h e d e f e n d a n t w a s uph e l d by t h e Supreme Court i n Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 (1952). The Court h e l d t h a t t h e Oregon s t a t u t e , r e q u i r i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t t o prove i n s a n i t y beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , ' d i d n o t v i o l a t e t h e Due P r o c e s s Clause because t h e prosecut i o n s t i l l had t h e burden of p r o v i n g a l l t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s of t h e crime. Recent Supreme Court d e c i s i o n s d e a l i n g w i t h o t h e r b u r d e n - s h i f t i n g statutes .. would seem t o r e q u i r e t h a t t h e r e be a c l e a r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between t h e e l e ments of a crime and t h e n e c e s s a r y s t a t e of mind b e f o r e t h e d e f e n d a n t c a n con9/ s t i t u t i o n a 1 l . y be r e q u i r e d t o c a r r y t h e burden of p r o v i n g i n s a n i t y . T h i s is - 9/ - See Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975). b e c a u s e t h e Due P r o c e s s C l a u s e r e q u i r e s t h e p r o s e c u t i o n t o p r o v e a l l e l e m e n t s of a c r i m e . I f " s t a t e of mind" i s c o n s i d e r e d a n e l e m e n t , t h e n t h e burden of proof c a n n o t be s h i f t e d t o t h e d e f e n d a n t . P s y c h i a t r i c e v i d e n c e would be l i m i t e d by S. 2658. A p s y c h i a t r i s t would be a b l e t o t e s t i f y o n l y a b o u t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n s of t h e d e f e n d a n t . He would n o t be a l l o w e d t o o f f e r a n o p i n i o n on w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t w a s i n s a n e . The a u t o m a t i c commitment p r o v i s i o n s of S. 2678 would fill t h e gap i n t h o s e f e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s t h a t do n o t have any such r e q u i r e m e n t . 3. Guilty but Insane H.R. 4898 (Rep. Sawyer, November, 1 9 8 1 ) H.R. 5395 (Rep R i n a l d o , J a n u a r y , 1 9 8 2 ) H.R. 5395 (Rep. Z o r i n s k y , May, 1981.t) . ---- T h e s e b i l l s add a new v e r d i c t - - g u i l t y b u t insane--to t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s of T h i s v e r d i c t would be used when a d e f e n d a n t commits a Criminal Procedure. ,-- c r i m e b u t d i d n o t have t h e n e c e s s a r y i n t e n t b e c a u s e of a m e n t a l d i s e a s e . -. If t h e j u r y r e n d e r s t h i s v e r d i c t , t h e d e f e n d a n t would u n d e r g o a p s y c h i a t r i c examin, a t i o n and a c o u r t h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e i f h e were s t i l l s u f f e r i n g f r o m a m e n t a l disease. I f s o , he would be committed t o a m e n t a l h o s p i t a l . When i n t h e o p i n b i o n of t h e h o s p i t a l s t a f f he had r e c o v e r e d and c o u l d s a f e l y be r e l e a s e d , t h e c o u r t would have a n o t h e r h e a r i n g . I f t h e c o u r t was i n a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e psy- c h i a t r i s t ' s c o n c f u s i o n s , i t would t h e n . o r d e r t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s d i s c h a r g e . 4. G u i l t y b u t M e n t a l l y 311 H.R. 6702 (Rep H e r t e l , J u n e 1982) H.R. 2672 (Sen. Quayle, J u n e 1982) H.R. 6717 (Rep. Shaw, J u n e 1982) A verdict-guilty s y s t e m by t h e s e b i l l s . b u t m e n t a l l y ill-would be added t o t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t T h i s v e r d i c t is c u r r e n t l y i n use i n f i v e S t a t e s ( G e o r g i a , H i c h i g a n , I n d i a n a , I l l i n o i s , and Alaska) and i s being c o n s i d e r e d by many o t h e r S t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e s . I t s e s t a b l i s h m e n t was a l s o a recommendation of t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ' s Task F o r c e on V i o l e n t Crime (1981). The defendant c o n v i c t e d under t h i s v e r d i c t would be one who had an unders t a n d i n g of what he was doing a t t h e time of t h e crime b u t was h i n d e r e d t o some d e g r e e by a mental i l l n e s s . I n o t h e r words, t h e d e f e n d a n t w a s not i n s a n e when he committed t h e o f f e n s e , ' b u t was i n f l u e n c e d by a m e n t a l i l l n e s s . i s not a replacement f o r t h e t r a d i t i o n a l i n s a n i t y d e f e n s e s . This verdict Rather, i t o f f e r s t h e j u r y a middle ground between a c q u i t t a l by r e a s o n of i n s a n i t y and c o n v i c t i o n . P r o c e d u r a l l y , t h e c o n v i c t e d defendant would r e c e i v e a s e n t e n c e under t h e a p p l i c a b l e c r i m i n a l law, but would a l s o r e c e i v e a p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n . he s t i l l s u f f e r e d from a ' m e n t a l i l l n e s s , he would be i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d . If If his mental h e a l t h was r e s t o r e d w i t h i n t h e time p e r i o d of t h e c r i m i n a l s e n t e n c e , he . would t h e n go on t o p r i s o n . I f t h e mental i l l n e s s and i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n were t o c o n t i n u e beyond t h e l e n g t h of t h e c r i m i n a l s e n t e n c e , a new c i v i l commitment h e a r i n g would have t o be h e l d t o i n s u r e t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of f u r t h e r deten- 5. C r i m i n a l Code H.R. 5679 (Rep. H.R. 5703 (Rep. H.R. 4711 (Rep. H.R. 6497 (Rep.. Reform B i l l s S e n s e n b r e n n e r , March 1982) Conyers, March 1982) Conyers, a c t 1981) McClory, May 1982) These b i l l s f o c u s on t h e r e v i s i o n and r e c o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e f e d e r a l c r i m i n a l laws. Both H.R. 5679 and H.R. s u b s t a n t i a l capacity defense. 5703 would have t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s u s e t h e A . L . I . H.R. 4711 does not s e t o u t an i n s a n i t y d e f e n s e ; i t a l l o c a t e s t h e burden of proof f o r t h e u s e of ill d e f e n s e s i n c r i m i n a l c a s e s . Once t h e r e i s " s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o s u p p o r t a r e a s o n a b l e b e l i e f " a s t o t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e d e f e n s e , t h e p r o s e c u t i o n must p r o v e i t s n o n e x i s t e n c e beyond a reasonable doubt. H.R. -- 6497 would c o d i f y t h e mens r e a i n s a n i t y d e f e n s e . C a t h e r ine Mar i o n American Law D i v i s i o n J u l y 1 9 , 1982 .