海角大神

The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a case from Idaho testing whether the federal Constitution requires states to provide criminal defendants with a right to claim they are innocent by reason of insanity.

All but four states 鈥� Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Kansas 鈥� permit criminal defendants to assert the insanity defense.聽The four states dropped the provision in the early 1980s after John Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity in his attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan.

The high court has never ruled on whether the 14th Amendment鈥檚 due process clause and/or the Eighth Amendment鈥檚 ban on cruel and unusual punishment require those four states to provide an insanity defense.

The court did not comment on its refusal to take up the case. However, three justices dissented from the action.

鈥淭he law has long recognized that criminal punishment is not appropriate for those who, by reason of insanity, cannot tell right from wrong,鈥� wrote Justice Stephen Breyer in a three-page dissent joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.聽鈥淚f a defendant establishes an insanity defense, he is not criminally liable, though the government may confine him civilly for as long as he continues to pose a danger to himself or to others by reason of his mental illness,鈥� Justice Breyer wrote.

In contrast, Idaho鈥檚 law mandates that a defendant鈥檚 鈥渕ental condition shall not be a defense to any charge of criminal conduct.鈥�

Rather than a blanket insanity defense, Idaho鈥檚 approach permits defense lawyers to present evidence at trial that their client鈥檚 mental illness undercut his or her ability to form the necessary criminal intent.

Also, judges in Idaho are required at sentencing to consider the defendant鈥檚 capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the criminal conduct.

The issue arose in an appeal on behalf of John Joseph Delling, who pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison.

Mr. Delling, who has a history of mental illness, was under the delusion that former high school classmates and other associates were attempting to sap his 鈥渆nergy鈥� and deplete his 鈥減ower鈥� in a way that would eventually kill him.聽Instead of allowing that to happen, Delling drew up a list of seven people he believed he needed to kill to save his own life.

Delling shot his first victim several times, but the man lived. He shot his second and third targets in the head. Both died. Prosecutors said that, at the time of Delling鈥檚 arrest, four other names remained on his kill list.

Delling鈥檚 lawyers said their client suffered from extensive delusions and believed he was acting in self-defense. They said Delling lacked the ability to form a rational understanding of the wrongfulness of his conduct.

Under those circumstances, they said, he should be permitted to claim the insanity defense.

Prosecutors in Idaho disagreed. They said Delling had been methodical in planning his crimes and, despite his mental illness, had been able to form clear criminal intent to kill two human beings.

鈥淗e killed in the delusional belief that the people he marked for death were 鈥榯rying to steal his powers鈥� and that their actions would result in his death,鈥� Idaho Deputy Attorney General Kenneth Jorgensen wrote in his brief to the court.

鈥淭he evidence at sentencing showed an escalation of violence in Delling鈥檚 behavior over time,鈥� Mr. Jorgensen said. 鈥淒elling had, however, successfully hidden the extent of his delusional thinking from mental health specialists prior to the murders.鈥�

Jorgensen also argued that Idaho law entitles convicted criminals who are insane to the same treatment as those who are civilly committed on grounds of insanity.

Delling鈥檚 lawyers said their client is not being afforded the same treatment as someone civilly committed. A patient who is civilly committed is entitled to be released after successful treatment, they said.

In contrast, Delling is being housed at Idaho鈥檚 Maximum Security Institution in solitary confinement, and must serve his full sentence even if his treatment is fully successful, Delling鈥檚 lawyers said.

The Idaho Supreme Court upheld Delling鈥檚 conviction, rejecting arguments that he should have been allowed to claim the insanity defense because he is incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his conduct.

鈥淭his disagreement over whether the Constitution mandates an insanity defense strikes at the heart of the integrity of the criminal justice system. And this case presents an ideal vehicle for resolving this issue,鈥� Stanford law Prof. Jeffrey Fisher wrote in his brief urging the justices to take the Delling case.

鈥淎lmost every state, the District of Columbia, and the federal government continue to agree that punishing the insane offends the fundamental principle of justice that only those who are morally responsible for their actions may be convicted of serious crimes,鈥� Professor Fisher wrote. 鈥淚daho鈥檚 model 鈥�, flouts this principle and is at odds with both the weight of history and the modern consensus among the states.鈥�

In his dissent, Breyer said the court should hear Delling鈥檚 appeal and examine whether Idaho鈥檚 modification of the insanity defense violates the 14th Amendment鈥檚 due process clause.

鈥淭he difference between the traditional insanity defense and Idaho鈥檚 standard is that the latter permits the conviction of an individual who knew what he was doing, but had no capacity to understand that it was wrong,鈥� Breyer said.

The case was Delling v. Idaho (11-1515). 聽