Criminal Defense Lawyers

New Jersey Section 2C:4-7 – Disposition

New Jersey Section 2C:4-7 – Disposition of Defendants Acquitted by Reason of Insanity

New Jersey Statute 2C:4-7 deals with the disposition of criminal defendants who have been acquitted by reason of insanity. This statute is part of New Jersey’s insanity defense laws, which are contained in Chapter 4 of Title 2C (the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice).

Overview of 2C:4-7

The text of 2C:4-7 is very brief, stating simply: “If a defendant is acquitted by reason of insanity the court shall dispose of the case as provided for in section 2C:4-8 of this chapter.

“So essentially, this statute indicates that when a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity, the court must proceed to determine the disposition of the defendant as set forth in 2C:4-8. Section 2C:4-8 deals with the commitment of insanity acquittees to psychiatric facilities.

Insanity Defense in New Jersey

Under New Jersey law, a defendant can be found not guilty by reason of insanity if, at the time of the criminal conduct, they suffered from a mental disease or defect that rendered them unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions or unable to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. This is known as the “M’Naghten plus irresistible impulse” insanity test.

To successfully assert an insanity defense, the burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) that they were insane at the time of the offense. Unlike most other states, New Jersey places the burden on the defendant rather than the prosecution when it comes to proving insanity.

If a jury or judge finds that the defendant has met their burden and acquits them on grounds of insanity, then 2C:4-7 comes into play, leading to the determination of disposition under 2C:4-8.

Disposition of Insanity Acquittees Under 2C:4-8

Section 2C:4-8 provides that when a defendant is acquitted by reason of insanity, the court will order the defendant to be committed to a mental health facility approved by the Commissioner of Human Services.

The purpose of commitment is to treat and rehabilitate the acquittee. The court can commit the defendant to either a state psychiatric hospital or another appropriate facility. The defendant cannot be released from commitment without a court hearing.

At the commitment hearing, the court will hear testimony from psychiatrists and will determine whether the acquittee is currently mentally ill and dangerous. If so, they will be committed. If not, they must be released.Even after an insanity acquittee is committed, they retain certain rights. For example, they have the right to periodic court review of their commitment. They also have the right to be represented by counsel at commitment hearings.

Policy Considerations Behind 2C:4-7 and 2C:4-8

Sections 2C:4-7 and 2C:4-8 reflect a few important policy considerations:

• Treatment, Not Punishment: Insanity acquittees are directed to psychiatric facilities rather than prisons because the purpose is treatment, not punishment. Since they were legally insane at the time of their crimes, it would be unjust to simply punish them as criminals. The focus is on rehabilitation.
• Public Safety: At the same time, public safety is still a priority. This is why insanity acquittees are not simply released – they are committed to secure facilities. Before being discharged, they must be found to no longer pose a danger to the community.
• Mental Health Parity: By mandating commitment and treatment of insanity acquittees, New Jersey aims to provide meaningful mental health services and attempt to restore competency. This reflects a policy goal of mental health parity – treating mental illness on par with physical illness.
• Checks and Balances: Despite taking away an insanity acquittee’s liberty through commitment, New Jersey law builds in checks and balances. There must be periodic court review, acquittees are entitled to counsel, and the state bears the burden at commitment hearings to prove current dangerousness and justify continued commitment.

Controversies and Criticisms

New Jersey’s disposition framework for insanity acquittees has been subject to some controversies and criticisms over the years:

• Indefinite Commitment: Critics argue that indefinite commitment of insanity acquittees is overbroad and violates due process. However, courts have generally upheld the constitutionality of such commitment schemes.
• Right to Refuse Medication: Some argue that insanity acquittees should have a greater right to refuse involuntary medication during commitment. Forced medication raises civil liberties concerns.
• Recidivism: There are disagreements about the recidivism rates of insanity acquittees after release from commitment. Some studies show high rates of reoffending, while others show much lower rates, comparable to the general population.
• Stigmatization: Insanity acquittal and commitment, despite being for treatment purposes, may unfairly stigmatize people with mental illness as being dangerous or incompetent.
• Access to Treatment: New Jersey has faced lawsuits alleging inadequate psychiatric treatment resources for insanity acquittees during commitment. Access to treatment is an ongoing issue.

Examples of 2C:4-7 in Case Law

Section 2C:4-7 has been cited in numerous New Jersey court decisions dealing with disposition of insanity acquittees:

• In State v. Fields, the NJ Supreme Court discussed how 2C:4-7 works together with 2C:4-8 to mandate commitment following an insanity acquittal. 77 N.J. 282 (1978).
• In State v. Krol, the NJ Supreme Court affirmed that 2C:4-7 gives a trial court no discretion – it must commit an insanity acquittee under 2C:4-8. 68 N.J. 236 (1975).
• In State v. Maik, the court cited 2C:4-7 in discussing how the insanity acquittee has the burden at commitment hearings to show they are not currently dangerous. 60 N.J. 203 (1972).

So in practice, New Jersey courts rely on 2C:4-7 as the statute directing disposition when a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity. The courts consistently interpret it as requiring commitment under 2C:4-8, absent rare exceptions. The overarching goals are to balance treatment and public safety when dealing with insanity acquittees.

Conclusion

In summary, New Jersey Statute 2C:4-7 plays an important role in the state’s framework for dealing with criminal defendants acquitted based on insanity. It mandates that such acquittees be committed to psychiatric facilities under 2C:4-8 for treatment and rehabilitation. However, the acquittees retain certain rights and New Jersey courts are tasked with providing continuing oversight of any commitment. The statute reflects policy goals of providing mental health treatment for insanity acquittees while also protecting public safety through secure commitment. There are certainly ongoing debates surrounding New Jersey’s disposition process for the insanity defense. But 2C:4-7 will likely remain an integral part of the legal system’s response to defendants whose mental illness renders them not criminally liable for offenses.