In 1937 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court referred to a mentally ill woman as “mentally deranged,” and “ugly, violent and dangerous” but still found that she could form the requisite intent to commit a battery. McGuire v. Almy, 8 N.E.2d 760, 761, 762 (Ma. 1937). The defendant was mentally ill and struck her caregiver with a chair; she was subsequently successfully sued for battery. Id. at 760. Mental illness, in torts, does not negate intent. Id. at 762.
A schoolteacher took a leave from work after suffering a “nervous breakdown” [sic: words from 1969]. Ortelere v. Teachers’ Retirement Bd. of City of New York, 25 N.Y.2d 196 (N.Y. 1969). Ms. Ortelere’s doctor diagnosed psychosis; a court found voidable a contract into which she entered while still in emotional and mental distress. Id. at 205. Contracts are voidable when one lacks the mental ‘capacity’ to form them. Id.
These cases, discussed briefly in my law school casebooks and classes, opened up opportunities to talk about all sorts of ramifications regarding legal intent and defenses in reference to the mentally ill. They created fantastic opportunities to discuss subjectivism vs. objectivism; mutual assent; ability to form intent; and maybe even what it means to be frail (as most of us are, sometimes) in a society that presumes that we are, at all times, strong. The discussions did not get that far, and it’s a shame. We only skimmed along the edges of what could have been a deep examination of where incapacity meets volition and what could be considered so disabling as to render a person incapable of contracting (or capable of battery). (Hey, I know it’s law school, and I know it’s first year, but we’re still people living in a society that tries–or should try–to protect those who need protection.)
As Cara points out on Feministe, “stereotypes about disability/mental illness are constantly utilized in attempts to expose the ‘fakers’ and…the fact that they’re used in this way by people in positions of authority only reinforces the idea that the stereotypes must be true.” Such stereotypes sometimes lead to narrow thinking and the assumption that “I’d know if someone was crazy.” In America, around one in four individuals has a diagnosable mental illness at any time. When you’re sitting in class, and the professor briefly mentions a mental incapacity defense, do you know that a person beside you or behind you or two rows away may be sinking into her chair or his own head? Or he may be sitting tall, knowing that he’s living with mental illness and doing just fine, thank you.
Law students become lawyers and lawyers run the country. Attorneys become senators and governors and presidents but also take clients every day through court systems to shape policy and law. That’s what I call running the country. And you know what? A large number of those lawyers have some form of mental disorder. They’re not incapacitated and they’re capable of forming contracts and they probably don’t meet most of the stereotypes you have about the mentally ill. Hey, guys, the ReasonableMan–average but not mistake-prone–absolutely does not exist. Please get used to it now; then get to the business of changing the world.
Even though a quarter of americans are diagnosed with a mental illness, the law does not provide mental defense for all of those in that set. The standard for the legal defenses is not made for people that have disorders but instead is made for those that are beyond the average individual’s mental illness and are not as controllable. So, yes the defense exists but it really isn’t meant for a quarter of our population. As you noted, there are many attorneys that do have mental illnesses and it is more probable that they wouldn’t be included in that set as they are able to function and make legal decisions on behalf of their clients.
…and that’s exactly my point. How great would this conversation have been? Where is the limit of mental incapacity? How do we determine it? Where does incapacity end and regular frailty begin?
Interesting debate on mental incapacity in California. (yes, yes, dear, i know the home of the Twinkie defense.) I denied my mental illness and disability for 12 years and recently applied for retroactive disability. The policy provides mental incapacity as absolute defense, but medicine now recognizes selective incapacity. Denial is well recognized and can be both an adaptive and maladaptive behavior. The claims person referred me to the dictionary so that contra rules. I do not believe diminished capacity has touched the area of disability insurance. I maintain the purpose to excuse late filing if you could not. So the issue is not how severe but that it prevents late filing. Riddle me this. Massive MI. A month in the hospital followed by return home but severely depressed. No one files for 6 months. Claim rejected as not mental incapacity (skip other factors as actual prejudice). Now not mental incapacity in traditional sense but hits the mark for purposes of protecting the insured. Does a mental reason prevent filing? I would bet half the judges would rule against but the Court of appeals would kick it back. Things have changed since they made it all women. Hey, I applied to lots of all women schools. Something about the showers. To which I exclaimed. Yes, the showers. Think we can skip the full check of my mental incapacity? So, ya packing any law? I already did all the jawin’.