Insanity and Entrapment

Insanity and Entrapment

Each answer must be in the form of a short, well-written essay. For my criminal law class:
1. Discuss, define, compare, and contrast the four major tests of insanity. Which one do you think is best? Be sure to explain your position.
2. What are the two major approaches to the entrapment defense? Which one do you think is best? Be sure to explain your position.
3. Why is entrapment a defense? Compare and contrast the two tests of entrapment.

1) One of the most well known and oldest tests to determine whether or not a person is criminally liable for his actions is called the M’Naghten test. It came about in 1843 in England when Daniel M’Naghten shot the Prime Minister’s secretary. A panel of judges came up with a series of principles about the defense of insanity. This has come to be known as the M’Naghten test. The “formula” for this test of insanity is that the defendant did not know that his act was wrong; or did not understand the nature and quality of his actions. The courts in the United States adopted this test for about 100 years, but began to change when the MPC test was released. When the M’Naghten test is satisfied, the defendant is usually found not guilty by reason of insanity, or guilty, but insane. The defendant usually is ordered to treatment in some sort of a mental health facility.

2)The Durham Rule,came about in the 1954 case of Durham v United States. The Durham Rule, provides that the defendant is not "criminally responsible if his unlawful act is the product of a mental disease or defect." At first it was seen as a simplification of the M’Naghten rule by making the insanity test a matter of a mental condition rather than a court question. It turned out to be difficult to apply in the real world because it did not really define mental disease or defect. Today, only New Hampshire still uses that rule to define criminal insanity.

3)The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1974 was passed by the U.S. Congress after the attempt on President Ronald Reagan’s life. This law changed the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense to prove that the defendant was insane at the time of the criminal act. The standard of proof was also raised to clear and convincing evidence. The MPC test was done away. Only those suffering from severe mental illness can use this defense. Whether or not the accused could control himself or not is not a factor in this test.

4) The American Law Institute (ALI) composed the Model Penal Code (MPC) many years ago. States usually take the MPC and adjust the various code sections according to the needs and desires of their constituency. As for the many tests for the insanity defense, in 1962, the ALI came up with a new test to determine criminal insanity. This MPC test a person is not responsible for his own criminal conduct if because of a mental disease or defect, he does not have the capacity either to appreciate his own criminal conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.

The disease or defect must be a mental diagnosis, not merely a one-time action. This test takes some elements of all three of the other three previous tests: the M’Naghten test (knowledge of right and wrong), the Irresistible Impulse test (lack of control), and the Durham test (mental disease or defect).

This broad rule was widely accepted and within 20 years of the ALI releasing this new test, all the federal courts and most of the state courts were using this test. Some states, and the federal criminal system, have since changed their definition of criminally insane, using a variation of the MPC.

Entrapment

The Two Major Approaches to Entrapment

In criminal law, the defense of entrapment is offered when a government agent (law enforcement) induces a person to commit a crime that he would likely not have committed if not for the intervention of law enforcement. There is no entrapment if a person is willing to commit the crime without any prompting. The police or other law enforcement can prepare a good opportunity to commit the crime, however. They can only offer the opportunity.

The defense of entrapment in the U.S. has come down mostly through cases decided through the courts. Two different “tests” for entrapment are used as a defense. One is an objective test and the other is the subjective test. The subjective test considers the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime. The defense of entrapment would apply if he had no intention of committing the crime. The “objective” test considers the government’s conduct rather than the defendant’s state of mind. If the actions of the law enforcement would have to cause a normal person to commit a crime.

At first, the courts did not go for this defense. Their view was if a crime was committed, the perpetrator should be punished. It is not common that entrapment is a successful defense, but it is raised quite a bit in prostitution cases and drug “buy” cases.

There are two things to consider in the objective entrapment defense, and the first is whether law enforcement really had the intention of stopping criminal activity. The second thing is whether the police had the means to arrest only those already involved in criminal actions. If either prong is present, there is entrapment under the law and the defendant should have the charges dismissed.

I think the best entrapment defense is the objective one. It is almost impossible to prove what someone’s state of mind was when they decided to commit a crime. Were they thinking about doing the crime ahead of time or not? Who knows? But I do think that the actions of the police officers should be held up to scrutiny for making it so easy for some people to commit a crime.

Why is entrapment a Defense?

The police should be after criminals and be preventing further criminal activity. It is against public policy to try to be trapping law abiding citizens into a committing a crime. It is also a waste of the time and money we spend on law enforcement.

Most crimes also carry with them the requirement for “mensrea” or rather the mental state of intending to commit a crime. If that is “manufactured” by the police, then there really was not a crime at all.