Mental conditions and competency of someone with PTSD who used self-defense in a domestic violence incident

Abstract

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has at times been cited in criminal defense arguments to justify matters such as sentence mitigation, self-defense in violent situations, diminished capacity, insanity, and unconsciousness. An examination of U.S. case law (particularly appellate decisions) shows a mixed reception of this argument in the judicial system. PTSD has been recognized in some courts as a valid basis for insanity, unconsciousness, and self-defense, with such courts admitting testimonies given about PTSD as scientifically reliable. Due to this argument, PTSD is a viable defense in the judicial system for domestic violence incidents.

Introduction

PTSD and other related syndromes, such as battered-woman syndrome, have been used to justify defense arguments for self-defense. In these arguments, some basic elements are maintained, such as that the defendant was not the aggressor, the defendant had a valid, reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury, the defendant reasoned that the use of force could prevent the potentially dangerous outcomes and that the defendant declined to use more force than necessary to avert the danger. Self-defense cannot be claimed if a defendant uses more force than is necessary to avert a dangerous situation (Berger, McNiel & Binder, 2012). If all the self-defense elements are met in a dangerous situation, this is referred to as perfect self-defense, and the defendant is completely exonerated of all faults. In imperfect self-defense, in which not all the elements are met, conviction on a lesser included offense is typically the result (e.g., manslaughter instead of first-degree murder). This paper, therefore, explores the mental conditions and competency of someone with PTSD who used self-defense in a domestic violence incident by focusing more on legal statutes about sanity.

The assessment of PTSD forensic assessment has been covered by several publications (Sparr & Pitman, 2007; Simon, 2003), which have focused on the importance of systematic diagnosis, the use of standardized measures, independent corroboration of reports, the inclusion of malingering assessment (Munetz & Griffin, 2006), and the measurement of psychophysiological responses to the recollection of traumatic events.

Mental condition

A defendant in a criminal case can enter into a defense of insanity, rape trauma syndrome, or battered woman syndrome (Fioritto, 2016). For any of these defenses, the defendant admits the offenses action but asserts a lack of guilt due to mental illness. These types of defenses are regarded as excuse defenses rather than justification defenses.

Insanity v. Diminished Capacity

There exist similarities between the insanity defense and the diminished capacity defense in that they both call into question the mental competence of a defendant. However, there are still several distinctions between the two. An insanity defense is a full defense to a

The diminished capacity defense is used to claim that there was no element of intent to commit a crime. The United States v. Hinckley case is one of the most famous recent uses of the insanity defense during the trial regarding the assassination attempt against then-President Ronald Reagan.

Competency

In a criminal case wherein a defendant enters an insanity defense, it is an important procedural requirement to establish competency. This is following due process requirements which makes a criminal defendant unable to stand trial if deemed legally incompetent. The Supreme Courts opinion in Dusky v. the United States (1960) states that a defendant is legally incompetent if the defendant is incapable of rationally communicating with his/her attorney and cannot rationally comprehend the proceedings against...

…appellate court, in this case, reversed the decision and additionally remanded that the case is put to a trial court for reconsideration.

In State v. Hines (1997), the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, overruled the trial courts decision on a homicide case involving PTSD and self-defense and remanded the case. The case was against a woman who was charged with the murder and robbery of her father. The defendant, Ms. Hines, claimed that the killing was committed in self-defense. The defendant claimed that her father sexually abused her as a child and had made sexual moves towards her on the day of the homicide. The defendant stated that she feared for her safety and fought back against her abuser, striking him multiple times with a hammer and killing him. The defendant tried to admit expert witness testimony on PTSD to support her claim of self-defense. Still, the court excluded this testimony and convicted the defendant on the lesser charge of manslaughter and theft. The case had been appealed, but the appellate court decided that the PTSD testimony was relevant to the defendants self-defense claim (Berger et al., 2012).

These cases outcomes illustrate that appellate courts have viewed PTSD testimonies as relevant to self-defense claims in incidents of homicideor attempted homicide of abusers.

Conclusion

PTSD is a viable defense argument in domestic violence cases, as illustrated above. PTSD is recognized as a mental condition that can influence a persons action in a dangerous situation. However, for this to be a permissible defense, it must be established that the defendant had suffered previous traumatic events to cause PTSD. It must also be shown that at the time of the domestic violence incident, the defendant was in an unstable mental state due to the PTSD as to use violent means to resolve a…