|
Here
are a handful of ways in which a defendant might assert a successful
defense
Go To (Click Here) Mental
States - What They Mean to Criminal Charges:
To convict a criminal defendant, the prosecutor
must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As part of
this process, the defendant is given an opportunity to present a
defense. A defendant may mount a defense by remaining silent, not
presenting any witnesses and arguing that the prosecutor failed to prove
his or her case. Frequently, this is the best and strongest way to
proceed. But there are many other types of defenses, from "I didn't
do it" to "I did it, but I was too drunk to know what I was
doing."
The Presumption
of Innocence
All people accused of a crime are legally presumed
to be innocent until they are convicted, either in a trial or as a
result of pleading guilty. This presumption means not only that the
prosecutor must convince the jury of the defendant's guilt, but also
that the defendant need not say or do anything in his own defense. If
the prosecutor can't convince the jury that the defendant is guilty, the
defendant goes free.
The presumption of innocence, coupled with the
fact that the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt, makes it difficult for the government to put people
behind bars.
Proving Guilt "Beyond a Reasonable
Doubt"
The prosecutor must convince the judge or jury
hearing the case that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable
doubt." This standard is very hard to meet. (By contrast, in
non-criminal cases, such as an accident or breach of contract, a
plaintiff has to prove her case only by a preponderance of the
evidence--anything over 50%.) As a practical matter, the high burden of
proof in criminal cases means that judges and jurors are supposed to
resolve all doubts about the meaning of the evidence in favor of the
defendant. With such a high standard imposed on the prosecutor, a
defendant's most common defense is often to argue that there is
reasonable doubt--that is, that the prosecutor hasn't done a sufficient
job of proving that the defendant is guilty.
Sometimes, however, a defendant can avoid
punishment even if the prosecutor shows that that the defendant did,
without a doubt, commit the act in question.
Self-Defense
Self-defense is a defense commonly asserted by
someone charged with a crime of violence, such as battery (striking
someone), assault with a deadly weapon or murder. The defendant admits
that she did in fact commit the crime, but claims that it was justified
by the other person's threatening actions. The core issues in most
self-defense cases are:
- Who was the aggressor?
- Was the defendant's belief that self-defense
was necessary a reasonable one?
- If so, was the force used by the defendant
also reasonable?
Self-defense is rooted in the belief that
people should be allowed to protect themselves from physical harm. This
means that a person does not have to wait until she is actually struck
to act in self-defense. If a reasonable person in the same circumstances
would think that she is about to be physically attacked, she has the
right to strike first and prevent the attack. But she cannot use more
force than is reasonable--if she does, she may be guilty of a crime.
The Insanity Defense
The insanity defense is based on the principle
that punishment is justified only if the defendant is capable of
controlling his or her behavior and understanding that what he or she
has done is wrong. Because some people suffering from a mental disorder
are not capable of knowing or choosing right from wrong, the insanity
defense prevents them from being criminally punished.
Despite its ancient origins (England, 1505),
the insanity defense remains controversial. Victim-oriented critics
point out that a person killed by an insane person is just as dead as a
person killed by someone who is sane, and argue that people should be
punished for the harm they cause, regardless of their mental state.
Critics also question the ability of psychiatrists, judges and jurors to
determine whether a person genuinely suffers from a mental disorder, and
to link mental disorders to the commission of crimes.
The insanity defense is an extremely complex
topic; many scholarly works are devoted entirely to explaining its
nuances. Here are some major points of interest:
- Despite popular perceptions to the contrary,
defendants rarely enter pleas of "not guilty by reason of
insanity." And when they do, judges and jurors rarely uphold
it.
- Various definitions of insanity are in use
because neither the legal system nor psychiatrists can agree on a
single meaning of insanity in the criminal law context. The most
popular definition is the "McNaghten rule," which defines
insanity as "the inability to distinguish right from
wrong." Another common test is known as "irresistible
impulse": a person may know that an act is wrong, but because
of mental illness he cannot control his actions (he's described as
acting out of an "irresistible impulse").
- Defendants found not guilty by reason of
insanity are not automatically set free. They are usually confined
to a mental institution until their sanity is established. These
defendants can spend more time in a mental institution than they
would have spent in prison had they been convicted.
- An insanity defense normally rests on the
testimony of a psychiatrist, who testifies for the defendant after
examining him and his past history, and the facts of the case.
Courts appoint psychiatrists at government expense to assist poor
defendants who cannot afford to hire their own psychiatrists.
- Once a defendant raises his or her sanity as
a defense, he or she must submit to psychological tests. This can be
a very painful and humiliating experience, one that many defendants
choose to forego rather than rely on the insanity defense.
The Influence of Drugs or Alcohol
Defendants who commit crimes under the influence
of drugs or alcohol sometimes argue that their mental functioning was so
impaired that they cannot be held accountable for their actions.
Generally, however, voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal
conduct. Defendants know (or should know) that alcohol and drugs affect
mental functioning, and thus they should be held legally responsible if
they commit crimes as a result of their voluntary use.
Some states allow an exception to this general
rule. If the defendant is accused of committing a crime that requires
"specific intent" (intending the precise consequences, as well
as intending to do the physical act that leads up to the consequences),
the defendant can argue that he was too drunk or high to have formed
that intent. This is only a partial defense, however, because it doesn't
entirely excuse the defendant's actions. In this situation, the
defendant will usually be convicted of another crime that doesn't
require proof of a specific intent. For example, a defendant may be
prosecuted for the crime of assault with specific intent to kill but
only convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, which doesn't require
specific intent.
The Alibi Defense
An alibi defense consists of evidence that a
defendant was somewhere other than the scene of the crime at the time it
was committed. For example, assume that Freddie is accused of committing
a burglary on Elm Street at midnight on Friday, September 13. Freddie's
alibi defense might consist of testimony that at the time of the
burglary, Freddie was watching Casablanca at the Maple Street Cinema.
Alibi is a perfectly respectable legal defense.
Yet to some people the term connotes a phony defense. Defense attorneys
usually are careful to remind jurors that alibi is simply a legal term
referring to evidence that a defendant was elsewhere at the time a crime
was committed, and that it in no way suggests falsity.
Entrapment
Entrapment occurs when the government induces a
person to commit a crime and then tries to punish the person for
committing it. However, if a judge or jury believes that a suspect was
predisposed to commit the crime anyway, the suspect may be found guilty
even if a government agent suggested the crime and helped the defendant
to commit it. Entrapment defenses are therefore especially difficult for
defendants with prior convictions for the same type of crime.
|
