6-3 Supreme Court decision today on insanity defenses

[Polybius]

The Court limited the rights of criminal defendants and declared that states can bar them from using insanity defenses. 6-3 decision, Kagan sided with the conservatives.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/23/politics/supreme-court-insanity-defense/index.html

[still_one]

1. Does that mean trump can't use it when he is out of office?

[Polybius]

2. Depends on what state charges him

It just means that states have a right to decide if they want to have insanity pleas or not. I'm pretty sure NY still has it.

[Hortensis]

4. Maybe this is a main reason he switched residence to FL. nt

[still_one]

6. I can think of 50 states who may want to express charges against him

[Polybius]

10. And at least 100 countries too

[still_one]

11. +++

[Recursion]

5. There's (broadly) two different standards of "insanity" defense

The most common is something like this: to be found not guilty, the defense has to show that the act was a direct consequence of the mental disease.

Some states have an older and broader definition, that goes something like this: to be found not guilty, the defense has to show that the accused did not understand the moral implications of his action.

If I'm reading this right, the Court just ruled that states that have that older rule (called the "M'Naghten rule" ) don't have to keep it, and can go to the "direct consequence" definition if they want to.

[Recursion]

3. This should only affect states that use M'Naghten, right?

States that use the Durham rule wouldn't seem to be impacted.

[Archae]

7. The insanity defense doesn't work that often.

I read somewhere that less than 1% of those using the insanity defense are successful.

So this won't affect many cases.

But thugs will still try.

[Polybius]

8. Breyer hated this decision though

His dissent was very vocal.

[Polybius]

9. Does anyone know why Kagan sided with the conservatives?

Not that it would have changed the outcome, but I'm very curious and concerned.