Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay 
Compare and contrast the approach to the insanity defense outlined in the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 with the ALI approach followed in a number of state courts.
Sample Answer
Title: A Comparative Analysis of the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 and the ALI Approach
Introduction
The insanity defense is a complex and controversial aspect of criminal law that aims to determine whether a defendant, due to mental illness, should be held responsible for their actions. Two prominent approaches to the insanity defense are the Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA) of 1984 and the American Law Institute (ALI) approach followed in various state courts. This essay will compare and contrast these two approaches, examining their key features, requirements, and implications.
Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984
The Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA) of 1984 was a federal legislative response to concerns regarding the leniency of the insanity defense. The IDRA introduced stricter standards for establishing insanity, making it more difficult for defendants to successfully use this defense.
Under the IDRA, a defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that, at the time of the offense, they suffered from a severe mental disease or defect that rendered them unable to understand the nature and quality of their actions or distinguish right from wrong. This “cognitive” test focuses on the defendant’s cognitive abilities at the time of the crime.
The IDRA also introduced the concept of “guilty but mentally ill” (GBMI), which allows for a middle ground between acquittal and full criminal responsibility. This option provides for the conviction of defendants who are found to have committed a crime but also have a recognized mental illness.
ALI Approach in State Courts
The American Law Institute (ALI) Model Penal Code approach is a widely used framework for assessing criminal liability, including the insanity defense. The ALI approach takes a broader view of mental illness and its impact on criminal responsibility.
According to the ALI approach, a defendant is not responsible if, due to a mental disease or defect, they lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct or conform it to the requirements of the law. This “cognitive and volitional” test considers both cognitive and volitional impairments, encompassing an understanding of right and wrong as well as the ability to control one’s behavior.
Unlike the IDRA, the ALI approach does not recognize the GBMI verdict. Instead, it focuses solely on determining whether a defendant is legally insane or not.
Comparisons
Standard of Proof:
IDRA: Requires clear and convincing evidence.
ALI Approach: Generally requires proof by a preponderance of evidence.
Cognitive vs. Cognitive and Volitional Test:
IDRA: Focuses primarily on cognitive impairment.
ALI Approach: Considers both cognitive and volitional impairments.
GBMI Verdict:
IDRA: Recognizes GBMI as an option, providing a middle ground between acquittal and full criminal responsibility.
ALI Approach: Does not recognize GBMI; defendants are either legally insane or not.
Contrasts
Focus on Cognitive and Volitional Impairment:
IDRA: Primarily considers cognitive impairment.
ALI Approach: Considers both cognitive and volitional impairments.
Standard of Proof:
IDRA: Requires clear and convincing evidence.
ALI Approach: Generally requires proof by a preponderance of evidence.
Recognition of GBMI Verdict:
IDRA: Recognizes GBMI as an option.
ALI Approach: Does not recognize GBMI; defendants are either legally insane or not.
Implications
The IDRA’s stricter standards make it more challenging for defendants to successfully plead insanity, potentially leading to fewer successful insanity defenses. The introduction of the GBMI verdict provides an intermediate option for cases where mental illness is present but does not fully absolve criminal responsibility.
On the other hand, the ALI approach takes a broader view of mental illness and considers both cognitive and volitional impairments. It does not recognize the GBMI verdict, focusing solely on determining legal insanity.
These differences in approach can have significant implications for defendants’ rights, determining their criminal responsibility, and shaping public perceptions of the insanity defense.
Conclusion
The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 and the ALI approach represent distinct approaches to assessing criminal responsibility in cases involving mental illness. While the IDRA emphasizes cognitive impairment and introduces the GBMI verdict, the ALI approach considers both cognitive and volitional impairments but does not recognize GBMI. The choice between these approaches has far-reaching implications for defendants, their legal rights, and societal perceptions of mental illness and criminal responsibility.
