Se habla Español | Wir sprechen Deutsch | Mówimy po polsku
Spanish Translation German Translation Polish Translation
Contact us for your initial consultation
847.577.8700
posted on 1/7/15

Criminal actions have serious consequences. However, not everyone is capable of understanding these consequences. For example, Illinois recognizes that some children lack the intellectual capacity to appreciate the criminality of their actions (the legal term is “infancy”). That is why the state cannot convict children of a crime they committed if they were younger than 13 at the time.

Infancy is an example of an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense is a set of facts that, if proven true, mitigate the legal consequences of a criminal act. Another example is if the defendant was involuntarily intoxicated or drugged and this condition deprived him of substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the law. Other examples include:

  • Self-defense;
  • Entrapment – when law enforcement induce someone to commit a crime that he would not commit otherwise; and
  • Necessity – when the defendant acted in order to avoid a significant harm that, if not avoided, would be worse than breaking the law, and there were no adequate legal means to avoid the harm.

The Insanity Defense

Mental illness and insanity are not affirmative defenses in Illinois. When a defendant raises an insanity defense or enters a guilty plea but claims to be mentally ill, it is considered an alternative plea or finding (e.g., when the jury finds the defendant not guilty because he is insane).

A person will not be held criminally responsible for otherwise criminal conduct if, at the time, he lacked substantial capacity–due to mental disease or mental defect–to appreciate the criminality of his actions. Note that “mental disease or mental defect” does not include “an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.”

The defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is not guilty by reason of insanity. However, the prosecution must still prove each element of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Until the prosecution makes its case, the jury cannot consider whether the defendant is insane. In other words, the defendant’s sanity–or lack thereof–is irrelevant unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the criminal offense.

If the person was not insane but was suffering from a mental illness when he performed the criminal act then he will not be relieved of criminal responsibility. However, the jury may find that the defendant is guilty but mentally ill. A “mentally ill” defendant is someone with a substantial disorder that impairs his judgment, but not so much that he cannot appreciate that his behavior is wrong.

Our Schaumburg criminal defense attorneys at Glasgow & Olsson have experience invoking affirmative defenses and the insanity defense. Contact us today for a consultation if your case would benefit from our expertise. We can assist those in the Chicago area.