Insanity

Insanity

There are two standards of mental competency that might exempt a person from prosecution for computer crime: the accused's insanity at the time of the alleged crime,FN21 and the accused's present inability to stand trial.FN22 Counsel should always explore both possibilities when probing into the defendant's personal history.

Though computer crime is usually viewed as the work of extremely intelligent individuals, there is nothing about computer crime that precludes the insanity defense. Modern psychology has demonstrated that intelligent people can also be insane.

There are indications in several computer crime cases that the individuals were very unusual in the amount of energy they devoted to committing their crimes. In one case, counsel for the defense indicated that he or she was contemplating a diminished capacity or insanity defense.FN23 The defense was based on the client's apparent self-destructive nature that was demonstrated by the fact the defendant did everything to get himself caught short of hiring a skywriter and confessing over Malibu beach.

There is authority, albeit neither legal nor medical to support the proposition that computer use is addictive.FN24 In appropriate circumstances, it might be argued that the defendant's addiction to computer use was so extreme that it amounted to legal insanity or diminished responsibility.

It must be evident that the suggestions are speculative, and not based on any legal precedent in the area of computer crime.FN25

Similarly, diminished responsibility can, in some jurisdictions, be used to establish that the requisite intent for a computer crime was not present.FN26 In at least one jurisdiction, if there is evidence presented at the trial showing that the accused is suffering from diminished mental capacity at the time he or she committed the offense, it is error for the trial judge not to instruct the jury on the doctrine.FN27