The United States Of Insanity(2021)
The United States Of Insanity(2021) ===> https://urlin.us/2tlGIi
Not only does the U.S. have the highest incarceration rate in the world; every single U.S. state incarcerates more people per capita than virtually any independent democracy on earth. To be sure, states like New York and Massachusetts appear progressive in their incarceration rates compared to states like Louisiana, but compared to the rest of the world, every U.S. state relies too heavily on prisons and jails to respond to crime.
In order to make the graph comparing the founding NATO nations to individual states, however, we had to make two exceptions to this policy. First, we included Iceland, which is a founding NATO member, even though its population is below 500,000. We also aggregated the total incarcerated and total population data for the three separate nations of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Island, into the one member of NATO, the United Kingdom.
A note about the District of Columbia and U.S. territories: This report focuses on comparing individual states to other countries, so we chose to not include the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands in the main graphic in this report, although we did make separate NATO comparison graphics for these places. However, the incarceration data for D.C. and the territories, where they exist, are in Appendix 1: State Data and the final incarceration rate calculations for D.C. and the territories are:
The non-profit, non-partisan Prison Policy Initiative was founded in 2001 to expose the broader harm of mass criminalization and spark advocacy campaigns to create a more just society. The organization is known for its visual breakdown of mass incarceration in the U.S., as well as its data-rich analyses of how states vary in their use of punishment. It sounded the national alarm about the threat of coronavirus to jails and prisons with its March 2020 report No need to wait for pandemics: The public health case for criminal justice reform, and its data-driven coverage of the pandemic behind bars continues to advance the national movement to protect incarcerated people from COVID-19.
A few states don't allow the insanity defense against criminal charges, including Idaho, Kansas, Montana, and Utah. Three of these states, with the exception of Kansas, allow \"guilty but insane\" verdicts, which often provide for institutionalization in lieu of prison. Most states that recognize legal insanity use either the M'Naghten Rule (sometimes in combination with the irresistible impulse test) or the ALI-MPC. Only New Hampshire uses the Durham standard. MHA favors the ALI-MPC version of the insanity defense.
The ALI-MPC and the vast majority of states place the burden of proving insanity on the defendant. The standard of proof varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.8 The defense should have the burden of introducing evidence of cognitive or volitional non-responsibility. In accordance with the ALI-MPC insanity defense, the prosecution should then, in addition to proving beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual committed the crime in question, also have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was not insane.9
In U.S. v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012),15 the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional for states to confine insanity acquittees in a mental health facility for periods longer than they would have been imprisoned had they been found guilty of the crime.16 But this still routinely occurs.17 Setting special release conditions and retaining criminal justice supervision are violations of the fundamental premise of the insanity defense, which is that confinement after an NGRI acquittal is appropriate only for as long as the additional period of confinement is clinically justified and serves a valuable rehabilitative purpose, in accordance with civil commitment laws, outside the criminal justice system. MHA advocates that insanity acquittees be released as soon as a professional assessment shows they have no serious mental illness that makes them dangerous to themselves or others. NGRI acquittees cannot be presumed to be dangerous or subject to ongoing mental illness under Foucha v. Louisiana (1992)18 and must be released after they are no longer mentally ill AND dangerous to self or others.
Viewed in light of ALI-MPC 4.01, 4.02 indicates that mens rea and diminished capacity defenses are to be available independently of the insanity defense. 4.02(2) provides a diminished capacity defense only in capital cases. While this formulation is more protective than the current law in the vast majority of states, the diminished capacity defense should not be limited to capital cases. A broader, but still sufficiently limited, defense would allow diminished capacity mitigation in all specific intent crimes, not only in capital crimes.
Idaho, Montana and Utah allow \"guilty but insane\" verdicts, which provide for institutionalization in lieu of prison, and, as noted above, Kansas law also permits, but does not require, this result. Most states that recognize legal insanity use either the M'Naghten Rule (sometimes in combination with the irresistible impulse test) or the ALI-MPC. Only New Hampshire uses the Durham standard. MHA favors the ALI-MPC version of the insanity defense.
About half of the states follow the \"M'Naughten\" rule, based on the 1843 British case of Daniel M'Naughten, a deranged woodcutter who attempted to assassinate the prime minister. He was acquitted, and the resulting standard is still used in 26 states in the U.S.: A defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity if \"at the time of committing the act, he was laboring under such a defect of reason from 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.\" (emphasis added) This test is also commonly referred to as the \"right/wrong\" test.
Some states that use the M'Naughten rule have modified it to include a provision for a defendant suffering under \"an irresistible impulse\" which prevents him from being able to stop himself from committing an act that he knows is wrong.
Three states -- Montana, Idaho, and Utah -- do not allow the insanity defense. Defendants must still be found competent to stand trial, and they may introduce evidence of a mental disease or defect as evidence that they did not possess the requisite intent or state of mind (mens rea) to be found guilty.
Faced with the difficulty of cases such as Ralph Tortorici's, where a defendant has clearly committed the crimes in question but is obviously mentally ill, many states have adopted laws providing for a \"guilty but mentally ill\" plea or verdict. This does not eliminate the insanity defense; it is merely an alternative for defendants who are found to be mentally ill, but whose illness is not severe enough to relieve him of criminal responsibility.
A few states allow for \"bifurcated\" trials for defendants invoking an insanity plea. The first phase deals with the crime itself and determines whether the defendant is guilty, without reference to insanity. If the defendant is found guilty, then he may raise an insanity defense in the second phase of the trial, which determines his sentence.
Commitment procedures vary widely from state to state. Some states require automatic commitment of an acquitted defendant to a mental institution, others require a commitment hearing. Some states use the same standards as apply to civil commitment procedures, while others have special procedures for criminal defendants.
The release procedures also vary. The determination to release a committed defendant can rest with a judge, with mental health professionals, or a specially appointed board. Some states provide for conditional releases, such as allowing the inmate to have supervised family visits off-site.
Study Background: Montana is one of four states in the United States that does not allow a criminal defendant to raise the so-called \"insanity defense\" to avoid conviction on the grounds that the defendant was suffering from a mental disorder that made the defendant unable to understand the criminal nature of the acts at issue or to confirm to the requirements of law. The Montana Legislature eliminated the insanity defense in 1979. Instead, Montana uses medical legal categories for criminal defendants and offenders, including guilty but mentally ill, not guilty due to mental illness, and unfit to proceed to trial. If a judge determines that a person was guilty of a crime but suffered from a mental disorder at the time the crime was committed, the judge must sentence the person to the director of the Department of Health and Human Services (DPHHS) for placement in an appropriate facility. An increasing number of these adult commitments has placed pressure on the department and its facility for people who have been criminally committed to the department. Since the creation in 2016 of the 54-bed Forensic Mental Health Facility at Galen for adults who are criminally committed to DPHHS, the Legislature has not closely examined the facility's role in the mental health and criminal justice system.
Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) 38-431-02, the Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB) hereby states that all notices of the meetings of the PSRB will be posted on the PSRB's website at www.azdhs.gov/psrb. Such notices will indicate date, time, and place of the meeting, and will include an agenda or information concerning the manner in which the public may obtain an agenda for the meeting.
In his brief on the merits, Kahler contends that it has long been established that a mentally ill person who commits a crime without understanding that his actions are wrong is not morally responsible for those actions and therefore should not be held criminally responsible. The importance of this rule, he suggests, can be seen in the fact that, until 1979, every jurisdiction in the United States allowed an insanity defense. Today, he continues, 45 states, the federal government, the U.S. military and the District of Columbia all allow a mentally ill defendant to assert an insanity defense. 59ce067264