No Plagiarism please. Use my text, 6th edition and cite. Montana is the state needing to be used. Please hit the distinguished marks on the scoring guide. Montana abolished this defense
Use case law and reasons why.
Introduction
The lack of mental competence can be broken down into two categories that have relevance to criminal culpability. The categories are competency and sanity. Competency is a legal question that entails the ability to understand the nature of the charges and the ability to assist in a defense. The issue of sanity focuses on the state of mind the accused possessed at the time the act was committed It is in the nature of an affirmative defense to raise the issue of whether or not the accused possessed the required criminal mental state at the time the act was committed. Unlike competence, insanity is a question of fact for a jury to determine. The consequence of an insanity finding is generally a civil commitment to the least restrictive alternative (for example, mental hospital and treatment facility) until the court finds the person is no longer a danger to himself or others.
In your main post, complete the following:
Describe the test for insanity in your state, citing statutory or case law.
Explain which party bears the burden of proof in your state once the defendant introduces some evidence of insanity.
Analyze whether you think the test in your state adequately protects the public and the defendants rights.
Evaluate the importance of understanding the procedural and substantive facets of the defense.
Criteria
Non-performance
Basic
Proficient
Distinguished
Main Discussion Post Response (60%)
Apply critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post. 50%
Does not apply elements of critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post.
Applies some elements of critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post.
Applies critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post.
Applies critical thinking or problem solving to the main discussion post in a comprehensive, step-by-step manner.
Use credible information or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion. 10%
Does not use credible information or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion.
Responds to the discussion, but some or all of the resources used for support are not credible.
Uses credible information or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion.
Uses well- developed, relevant support from credible resources or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion and impartially considers conflicting data or other perspectives.
Follow-up Post Response One (15%)
Advance the discussion with a substantive response that asks questions, assesses further considerations, or provides a different point of view. 15%
Does not respond to the discussion beyond the initial post.
Provides a substantive response, but does not advance the discussion by asking questions, assessing further considerations, or providing a different point of view.
Advances the discussion with a substantive response that asks questions, assesses further considerations, or provides a different point of view.
Advances the discussion with a substantive response that contains well- supported and fully developed positions and perspectives that support or conflict with the original post.
Follow-up Response Two (15%)
Advance the discussion with a substantive response that asks questions, assesses further considerations, or provides a different point of view. 15%
Does not respond to the discussion beyond the initial post or the first response.
Provides a substantive response, but does not advance the discussion by asking questions, assessing further considerations, or providing a different point of view.
Advances the discussion with a substantive response that asks questions, assesses further considerations, or provides a different point of view.
Advances the discussion with a substantive response that contains well- supported and fully developed positions and perspectives that support or conflict with the original post.
All Posts (10%)
Communicate in a professional manner that is consistent with expectations for criminal justice professionals. 10%
Communicates in a manner that is inconsistent with expectations for criminal justice professionals.
Communicates in a manner that is not fully consistent with expectations for criminal justice professionals.
Communicates in a professional manner that is consistent with expectations for criminal justice professionals.
Communicates in a clear, comprehensive, and professional manner aligned with with expectations for criminal justice professionals.
