ACT-READING-P2

One of the author’s main points about the legal concept of responsibility in the passage is that:

•  the phrase “not guilty by reason of insanity” has made our legal system more efficient.
• responsibility and guilt are legal concepts, and their meanings can be modified.
• knowing right from wrong is a simple matter of admitting the truth to oneself.
• people can become severely disturbed without a word of warning to anyone.

Tags

CCSS.RI. 9-10.2

CCSS.RI.11-12.2

CCSS.RL.11-12.2

CCSS.RL.9-10.2

CCSS.RI.8.2

Based on the passage, the primary purpose for the 1970s redefinition of insanity proposed by the American Law Institute was to:

•  eliminate the insanity defense from American courtrooms.
• more precisely define the concepts of responsibility and intellectual capacity.
• redefine legal insanity so that it might include as many criminals as possible.
• apply the McNaghten Rule only to trials involving cases of mistaken identity.

Tags

CCSS.RI. 9-10.2

CCSS.RI.11-12.2

CCSS.RL.11-12.2

CCSS.RL.9-10.2

CCSS.RL.8.2

From information in the third and fourth paragraphs (lines 35–58) it can reasonably be inferred that the legal definition of insanity was changed in the 1970s after:

•  federal courts won a dispute with state courts over a proposal made by the American Law Institute.
• the doctrine of “irresistible impulse ” was found to contradict accepted notions of justice.
•  proponents of the McNaghten Rule had been using the insanity defense in far too many murder trials.
•  several courts found that justice was not always best served when the McNaghten Rule was applied.

Tags

CCSS.RI.8.1

CCSS.RI.8.8

CCSS.RL.11-12.1

CCSS.RL.8.1

CCSS.RL.9-10.1

According to the explanation provided in the fourth paragraph (lines 43–58), use of the wordappreciate in the phrase “to appreciate the wrongfulness” (lines 48–49) instead of knowimplies which of the following?

• The difference between right and wrong is something people feel rather than know, which makes deciding legal responsibility difficult.
• To know implies certainty, and distinguishing right from wrong is often a subjective matter in determining legal responsibility.
• The word appreciate suggests that an action and that action’s implications must be understood for there to be legal responsibility.
• An insane person would “know” something the way a sane person would “know” something, and be able to appreciate that knowledge, too.

Tags

CCSS.RI.11-12.4

CCSS.RI.9-10.4

CCSS.RL.11-12.4

CCSS.RL.8.4

CCSS.RL.9-10.4

The passage indicates that the McNaghten case became the basis for future decisions about legal insanity because:

• the House of Lords upheld the verdict of the court despite considerable political pressure.
• there had been an increase in cases of murder involving mistaken identity arising from delusions.
• McNaghten was unable to convince the jury at his trial that he was incoherent and insane.
• McNaghten used a gun to commit murder, thus aggravating the crime in the jury’s mind.

The passage states that McNaghten wanted to kill the English prime minister because the Scotsman thought that he:

•  would establish a confusing legal precedent.
• had been rejected by Peel’s secretary.
• would be better off in a mental hospital.
• had been wronged by the minister.

Tags

CCSS.RI. 9-10.2

CCSS.RI.11-12.2

CCSS.RL.11-12.2

CCSS.RL.9-10.2

CCSS.RL.8.2

According to the passage, one of the reasons some mental health and legal groups want to abolish the insanity defense is that:

• even clever lawyers are confused about when to use and when not to use it.
• juries that must sort out conflicting testimony become confused, and justice suffers.
• when it is invoked, even if the case is won, the punishment often ends up being too lenient.
• innocent defendants are too often being punished unfairly by unsympathetic juries.

The passage suggests that individuals who use the insanity defense:

• are not permitted to do so unless it can be proved beforehand that they are really insane.
•  should be tried, convicted, and punished whether or not they are really insane.
•  are legally responsible for their actions even if a jury decides they are not guilty.
• might risk a lifelong confinement even if acquitted by a jury, if the acquittal is based on insanity.

According to the passage, a lawyer contemplating using insanity as a defense for a client should do which of the following?

• Carefully evaluate using the defense, since in actual practice it rarely works
• Assemble for trial a team of expert witnesses with a wide range of viewpoints on mental illness
• Make sure that the doctrine of “irresistible impulse” is not used by the prosecution in his or her client’s trial
• Recommend that the client be acquitted because he or she has been judged criminally insane by a doctor

One of the main points made in the last paragraph is that insanity pleas were:

• unconvincing to most juries in California in 1980.
•  used in most cases in California in 1980.
• often successful in California in 1980.
•  popular with lawyers in California in 1980.

Tags

CCSS.RI. 9-10.2

CCSS.RI.11-12.2

CCSS.RL.11-12.2

CCSS.RL.9-10.2

CCSS.RI.8.2