Inside the suburban home of a terrorist:

The Guesser · Jun 14, 2016

superbeets said:
United States law

In the United States, variances in the insanity defense between states, and in the federal court system, are attributable to differences with respect to three key issues:
(1) Whether to provide the insanity defense,
(2) how to define "insanity,"
and (3) the burden of proof.

Federal and state availability

In the United States, a criminal defendant may plead insanity in federal court, and in the state courts of every state except for Idaho, Kansas, Montana, and Utah.

Definition

Each state and the federal court system currently uses one of the following "tests" to define insanity for purposes of the insanity defense:

M'Naghten test

The guidelines for the M'Naghten Rules (1843) 10 C & F 200, state, inter alia, and evaluating the criminal responsibility for defendants claiming to be insane were settled in the British courts in the case of Daniel M'Naghten in 1843. M'Naghten was a Scottish woodcutter who killed the secretary to the prime minister, Edward Drummond, in a botched attempt to assassinate the prime minister himself. M'Naghten apparently believed that the prime minister was the architect of the myriad of personal and financial misfortunes that had befallen him[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]. During his trial, nine witnesses testified to the fact that he was insane, and the jury acquitted him[SUP][citation needed][/SUP], finding him "not guilty by reason of insanity."
The House of Lords asked the judges of the common law courts to answer five questions on insanity as a criminal defence,[SUP][30][/SUP][SUP][31][/SUP] and the formulation that emerged from their review—that a defendant should not be held responsible for his actions only if, as a result of his mental disease or defect, he (i) did not know that his act would be wrong; or (ii) did not understand the nature and quality of his actions—became the basis of the law governing legal responsibility in cases of insanity in England. Under the rules, loss of control because of mental illness was no defense[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]. The M'Naghten rule was embraced with almost no modification by American courts and legislatures for more than 100 years, until the mid-20th century. M'Naghten's Case, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (1843).

Durham/New Hampshire test

The strict M'Naghten standard for the insanity defense was used until the 1950s and the Durham v. United States case. In the Durham case, the court ruled that a defendant is entitled to acquittal if the crime was the product of his mental illness (i.e., crime would not have been committed but for the disease). The test, also called the Product Test, is broader than either the M'Naghten test or the irresistible impulse test. The test has much more lenient guideline for the insanity defense, but it addressed the issue of convicting mentally ill defendants, which was allowed under the M'Naghten Rule. M'Naghten's Case, 8 Eng.Rep. 718 (1843). However, the Durham standard drew much criticism because of its expansive definition of legal insanity.

Model Penal Code test

The Model Penal Code, published by the American Law Institute, provides a standard for legal insanity that serves as a compromise between the strict M'Naghten Rule, the lenient Durham ruling, and the irresistible impulse test. Under the MPC standard, which represents the modern trend, a defendant is not responsible for criminal conduct "if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law." The test thus takes into account both the cognitive and volitional capacity of insanity.

Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984

After the perpetrator of President Reagan's assassination attempt was found not guilty by reason of insanity, Congress passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984. Under this act, the burden of proof was shifted from the prosecution to the defense and the standard of evidence in federal trials was increased from a preponderance of evidence toclear and convincing evidence. The ALI test was discarded in favor of a new test that more closely resembled M'Naghten's. Under this new test only perpetrators suffering from severe mental illnesses at the time of the crime could successfully employ the insanity defense. The defendant's ability to control himself or herself was no longer a consideration.
The Act also curbed the scope of expert psychiatric testimony and adopted stricter procedures regarding the hospitalization and release of those who found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Additional reforms have taken place besides the major Insanity Defense Reform Act, including the addition of the GBMI (Guilty but Mentally Ill) option to trial, changes in the burden and/or standard of proof in a trial, changes in the test of insanity or in the entering of the plea all together, various alterations in the trial procedures, and changes in commitment and release procedures after the trial has been complete.

Burden of proof

In a majority of states, the burden is placed on the defendant, who must prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.
In a minority of states, the burden is placed on the prosecution, who must prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.
In federal court, and in Arizona, the burden is placed on the defendant, who must prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence. See 18 U.S.C.S. Sec. 17(b); see also A.R.S. Sec. 13-502(C).

This sick, no life Brit Twit is quickly getting to 43,000 posts in less than 6 years. He is proving his own insanity, That Trumps, or Drumpfs,

any of his inane posts trying to show the clinical definition of insanity, for a guy who is dead, and whose actions proved he was insane.

The Guesser · Jun 14, 2016

Sheriff Joe said:
Oh noes! He said some "angry stuff"...so lets allow the government to swoop in take away his guns (even though he passed all the security clearances working for a government security contractor).

Idiot, he didn't just say "angry stuff". He did enough for 3 separate Terrorist link investigations, being placed on 2 terrorist watch lists, as well as at least one domestic abuse report. Letting a guy like this easily obtain an assault weapon legally is as crazy as you are.

superbeets · Jun 14, 2016

The Guesser said:
This sick, no life Brit Twit is quickly getting to 43,000 posts in less than 6 years. He is proving his own insanity, That Trumps, or Drumpfs, any of his inane posts trying to show the clinical definition of insanity, for a guy who is dead, and whose actions proved he was insane.