Scribd
Upload
14 views

The Insanity Defense

The insanity defense is an affirmative legal defense asserting that a defendant is not responsible for their actions due to a mental disorder at the time of the crime. Key legal standards include the M’Naghten Rule, which requires proof that the defendant could not distinguish right from wrong, and variations like the Durham Rule and ALI Rule. The defense is rarely used in practice, with forensic mental health professionals providing evaluations to assist juries in determining criminal responsibility.

Uploaded by

Panashe Nyoni
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
14 views

The Insanity Defense

The insanity defense is an affirmative legal defense asserting that a defendant is not responsible for their actions due to a mental disorder at the time of the crime. Key legal standards include the M’Naghten Rule, which requires proof that the defendant could not distinguish right from wrong, and variations like the Durham Rule and ALI Rule. The defense is rarely used in practice, with forensic mental health professionals providing evaluations to assist juries in determining criminal responsibility.

Uploaded by

Panashe Nyoni
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense used in

criminal cases. Here are the key points:

1. Purpose and Definition:

o The insanity defense argues that the defendant is not responsible for their actions
due to a psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act.

o It contrasts with an excuse of provocation, where the defendant is responsible but


lessened due to a temporary mental state.

2. Legal Definitions:

o Various legal definitions of insanity or mental disorder exist:

 M’Naghten Rule: Originating in England, it states that a defendant is legally


insane if they cannot distinguish right from wrong.

 Durham Rule: Broader than M’Naghten, it considers whether the act


resulted from a mental disorder.

 ALI Rule (American Legal Institute Model Penal Code): Focuses on lack of
mens rea (guilty mind).

 Other Provisions: Different jurisdictions have their own criteria.

o In Australia and Canada, the M’Naghten Rules are enshrined in statutory legislation.

3. Application and Rarity:

o The insanity defense is rarely used in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the United
States.

o Mitigating factors (e.g., intoxication) and partial defenses (e.g., diminished capacity)
are more common.

4. Forensic Mental Health Professionals:

o Evaluations by these experts guide the jury.

o They testify on mental health issues but not criminal responsibility (jury decides
that).

In summary, the insanity defense seeks to protect individuals with mental disorders from full
criminal responsibility for their actions123
Explore

The M’Naghten Rules, pronounced and sometimes spelled as McNaughton, serve as a legal test
defining the defense of insanity. These rules were first formulated by the House of Lords in 1843.
They are the established standard in UK criminal law and have also been adopted in some US states
and other jurisdictions either through case law or statute1.

Here are the key principles of the M’Naghten Rules:

1. Presumption of Sanity and Burden of Proof: Every person is presumed to be sane. To


establish an insanity defense, it must be clearly proven that, at the time of committing the
act, the accused was suffering from a defect of reason due to a disease of the mind. The
accused must either not have known the nature and quality of the act or, if aware, did not
know it was wrong1.

2. Disease of the Mind: The defendant’s mental condition must result from a disease of the
mind. This term encompasses various mental disorders or illnesses that impair reasoning
and judgment.

3. Nature and Quality of the Act: The accused must not have understood the nature and
quality of their actions. In other words, they lacked the capacity to comprehend what they
were doing.

4. Knowledge of Wrongfulness: Even if the accused knew the nature of the act, they must not
have known that it was morally wrong. If they understood the act but believed it was
justified or not wrongful, the insanity defense may apply.

The M’Naghten Rules originated in response to the acquittal of Daniel M’Naghten, who had
mistakenly shot Edward Drummond, believing him to be the British Prime Minister Robert Peel. The
public outcry over this acquittal led to the formulation of these rules. They continue to be a standard
test for criminal liability related to mentally disordered defendants in various jurisdictions 1.

In addition to the M’Naghten Rules, other variations of the insanity defense exist, including the
irresistible impulse, substantial capacity, and Durham tests. However, the M’Naghten rule remains
one of the most common and oldest insanity defenses in the United States and was originally
created in England2.

You might also like