From M’Naghten to Hinckley to Clark: “The Incredible Shrinking Insanity Defense”

In 1843, Daniel M’Naghten (left) killed the secretary of the Prime Minister of England.  Medical evidence introduced at his murder trial indicated that he suffered paranoid delusions, leading to his acquittal and eventually to judicial recognition of something like the modern insanity defense. 

After a period of expansion in the mid-twentieth century, the insanity defense has been progressively restricted since John Hinckley’s successful use of the defense during his trial on charges arising from his attempted assassination of President Reagan.  Janie Kim now recounts the story of the “incredible shrinking insanity defense,” as she calls it, in a fascinating new paper on SSRN.

She focuses particularly on the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Clark v. Arizona. 

Continue ReadingFrom M’Naghten to Hinckley to Clark: “The Incredible Shrinking Insanity Defense”

The Second Amendment and the Public’s Health

Last November, Michael O’Hear offered an interesting post on whether a Seventh Circuit decision that developed a new test for Second Amendment claims would breath life into the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), which for the first time interpreted the Second Amendment as conferring an individual right to possess and use firearms. Two years after Heller was handed down, I have been wondering about its consequences, too, in the context of public health policy.

Historically, gun-related violence and accidents were not viewed as a public health matter. Rather, gun violence was considered a matter for the criminal justice system; gun-related suicides were seen as a concern for the mental health system; and gun accidents were viewed as best handled by educational safety courses. Perceptions changed, however, with the advent of the field of injury prevention in the 1970s. When all gun violence and accidents were considered together, guns were found to be the second-leading cause of injury deaths in the U.S. 

Continue ReadingThe Second Amendment and the Public’s Health

Limits to Life: SCOTUS Issues Decision in Graham

The Supreme Court finally issued its long-awaited decision in Graham v. Florida this morning.  And it turns out that the Eighth Amendment may not be so toothless after all: the Court held that sentencing a juvenile to life without parole for a nonhomicide crime violates the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause.  Graham received an LWOP sentence for a botched robbery at age sixteen.  The Court overturned Graham’s sentence, holding that states must at least “give defendants like Graham some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation” (24).  Thus, the Court did not preclude life sentences per se for juveniles, but rather focused on the availability of parole:

The Eighth Amendment does not foreclose the possibility that persons convicted of nonhomicide crimes committed before adulthood will remain behind bars for life.  It does forbid States from making the judgment at the outset that those offenders never will be fit to reenter society. (24)

Graham breaks a string of defeats in the Court for Eighth Amendment challenges to prison terms.  Although the Court has been quite active in recent years in using the Eighth Amendment to regulate the death penalty, the Court had seemed uninterested in imposing limitations on the use of lesser sentences.  Of course, LWOP for a juvenile robbery is pretty extreme, so it would be premature to infer from Graham that the Court is going to get more involved in regulating long prison terms.

Not suprisingly, Justice Kennedy authored the majority opinion.  He has been the swing Justice in the Court’s recent Eighth Amendment cases, and there was little doubt that he was going to be part of the majority in Graham whichever way it came out.  Slightly more surprising is that Chief Justice Roberts concurred in the judgment, making the final vote 6-3 (instead of the more typical 5-4 in Eighth Amendment cases).  Based on this and a few other recent cases (for instance, with respect to jury-trial rights), it seems to me that Roberts is not as much an automatic vote against  defendants as his predecessor, Chief Justice Rehnquist.  It is also interesting to see the Justice Sotomayor voted with the majority, suggesting that she may adhere to the position of her predecessor (Justice Souter) in supporting robust Eighth Amendment rights.  Would a Justice Kagan do the same?  Justice Stevens was part of several tenuous majorities in this area, meaning that his replacement has the potential to bring about some major changes in the Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.

Continue ReadingLimits to Life: SCOTUS Issues Decision in Graham