Defence Of Insanity Essay

1159 Words3 Pages

The basis of insanity is upon M’Nagten Rules (1843) which set forward the principles of a defence when the “defendant had a defect of reason” or a “disease of the mind” and was not able to understand the nature of the act they did or did not know what they were doing was wrong. These three conditions must be proved for the defence of insanity to become available. Insanity is available for the all cases that require mens rea except for strict liability cases. The first condition to be established is the defendant’s defect of reason. This must show that the defendant was impaired at reasoning. However, if the defendant was capable of reasoning but still committed a crime despite this then the defence of insanity will not be available as decided in the case of Clarke (1972) The second condition to be established is whether the defendant had a “disease of the mind”. This condition is …show more content…

For example, the defence of insanity’s main framework was created in 1843 when we had very little understanding of mental diseases in contrast to what we know now. The legislation for this defence needs to be updated by parliament to better reflect all that we know about this area in the modern age. Another issue is that the defence of insanity does necessarily only apply to the “insane”. Disease such as diabetes and sleepwalking are obviously not conditions that equal insanity and therefore shouldn’t be included under the defence of insanity. Finally, the defence of insanity often relies too much on the discretion of the jury to decide whether or not they are telling the truth. The jury generally has no medical knowledge in the field of mental illness so it can be seen as unfair that they are forced to be the judge of mental illness as opposed to specially trained doctors. This is shown in Oye (2013) whether a jury found the defendant guilty despite the clear medical evidence that showed his mental

Show More
Related

  • Case Study Of Mark J. Dipietley's Case

    1723 Words  | 4 Pages

    What’s more, the success rate of those cases is only about 26%. Insanity defense can be a possible escape to crime, but in order to state as true the defense of insanity or the insanity plea, the person who is being sued or was sued must declare that he/she is not responsible for his/her actions because of their mental health problem. That person must strongly express that he/she was not aware of the actions. Usually, the first thing that is done in a person’s insanity plea is that he /she needs to go through a thorough mental process. Psychologists or Psychiatrists can help the process on how to figure out the person’s actual state of mind during the crime. However, they are not in the position to decide whether the person is really insane. Only the jury can decide whether the statements in court or the findings support the criminal insanity defense. If the court finds the person is guilty for the possible crime but she or she was not mentally responsible during the time that the crime was committed, often, they will be sent to a psychiatric hospital or placed in a mental hospital for the criminally insane. Usually, punishment is not forever; it will only last until the person is no longer a threat to the people of the world. There are cases where they claim insanity only lasts a certain period of time. This kind of defense is very hard to prove. If the person declares that their

    Read More

  • Mcwilliams Vs Dunn Case Study

    482 Words  | 1 Pages

    The case McWilliams v.s. Dunn is about the conviction of James McWilliams, who was sentenced to death. During the trial, McWilliams made it known that he has mental disabilities which are said to have a significant fact at trial. McWilliams was then granted what is known as Ake which is short for the clause of Ake v. Oklahoma stating that “once the defendant demonstrates that their sanity at the time of offense has a significant fact in trial that the state must provide the defendant with access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examinations and evaluations which will aid in the presentation of defense.”

    Read More

  • Competency To Stand Trial Essay

    1703 Words  | 4 Pages

    Insanity (legal sense): A person can be declared insane if they are conscious while committing the crime, committing the criminal act voluntarily, and had no intent to inflict harm. A person declared insane lacks rational intent due to a deficit or disorder, which inhibits their rational thinking

    Read More

  • The Competency to Stand Trial

    1260 Words  | 3 Pages

    The criminal justice system takes on a pivotal role in pursuing and preventing crimes in society. When a suspect is caught and then faced with charges for a violent crime, they legally have the right to a fair trial. In order for a criminal proceeding to successfully take place, the defendant must be fully aware of their surroundings, have a basic understanding of court procedures, as well as being capable of defending their one case. Competency to stand trial (CST) is essential for maintaining fairness in the courtroom and producing a just verdict. However, if a defendant is unable to understand legal proceedings due to mental illness or impairment, they must be thoroughly assessed and evaluated before declared incompetent to stand trial. Carrying out a case with a defendant who lacks mental capacity causes numerous issues because the individual is incapable of supplying their lawyers with information regarding their crime or any of the witness testimonies at trial. Lack of comprehensible communication between a defendant and attorney forces an ineffective defense in the case. Mental disturbances in the defendant that may cause disorderly conduct in the court room are considered disruptive and weaken the authority of the legal system. Supreme Court cases that have dealt with competency to stand trial issues over the years have made significant rulings, which have stressed the importance of identifying whether or not a defendant is in fact incompetent.

    Read More

  • There's No Defense for Affluenza

    1956 Words  | 4 Pages

    The relationship between motive and consequence is a complex one, and is made even more debatable when context becomes involved. Throughout our judicial history, the line between responsibility and exemption remains razor-thin in its subjectivity. If a woman murders her husband, but was abused by him for years, why is this considered different from a murder where the perpetrator wasn’t abused? We take these mitigating factors into account in court, but they present a unique problem. How much and which extenuating circumstances are enough to change the conviction? Precedents are continually being set as new mental conditions are discovered or gain new validity, so we must be able to discern the difference between defenses that are legitimate, and the Twinkie defenses. Twinkie defenses are those, which carry no reasonable justification for diminishing the mental capacity of the defendant. The ambiguity of what we know of the mind creates this conflict, so it is important that we consider the context with care.

    Read More

  • The Insanity Defense

    1267 Words  | 3 Pages

    Much of my skepticism over the insanity defense is how this act of crime has been shifted from a medical condition to coming under legal governance. The word "insane" is now a legal term. A nuerological illness described by doctors and psychiatrists to a jury may explain a person's reason and behavior. It however seldom excuses it. The most widely known rule in...

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Insanity Defense

    334 Words  | 1 Pages

    To be aware, most cases relating to the Insanity defense are not successful. In fact, the insanity defense is generally frowned upon. Many explain that the insanity defense is a form of absolution, dishonesty and rejection. The opponents of insanity defense argue that the accused are faking it to avoid harsher charges. According to the Braindon Gaille website (2014), a study in 1991 across multiple states, found that the success rate for insanity pleas were about 25%. One of the main proponents for insanity defense is the people who suffer with schizophrenia. However, there have been people who successfully pleaded insanity. Most importantly, the two exceptional cases come into mind when talking about successful cases concerning the insanity

    Read More

  • Is The Current Law Defense of Insanity Ineffective?

    1779 Words  | 4 Pages

    The concept of insanity as a defence was established in the early eighteenth century in the Arnold’s case (1724) and was further developed in the late 18th century in the Hadfield’s case (1800), but the standard test of criminal liability was only formed after the case of Daniel M’Naghten (1843). This case established the special verdict of ‘not guilty by reason of insanity‘ which leaves the D under control of the courts. Another problem, criticised by Peter Blood, is that the burden of proof is on the D, which means that the D must prove his defence of insanity on the basis of the balance of probabilities and not beyond any reasonable doubt. The legal definition of insanity: The legal definition of insanity has not changed since 1842. The Law Commission 1965, the main body which makes proposals for changes, included insanity in the 10th programme of reform.

    Read More

  • Dusky Case Study

    761 Words  | 2 Pages

    United States, 362, U.S. 402 (1960). The significance of this case seemed glaring to me when compared to the other cases. This case set the standard for determining competency to stand trial, it is even referred to as the “Dusky standard.” The test for mental competence occurs pretrial. In order to be deemed mentally competent enough to stand trial, the defendant must be able to understand the proceedings against him/her. The defendant must also be able to assist in preparing his/her defense by (coherently) consulting with his/her appointed legal counsel/representation. It is important to note that orientation to time and place are insufficient in serving as sole determinants of mental competency for trial. Once again, the competency test is different from the insanity defense. A defendant’s mental competency during a trial is an extremely important factor. It seems to me that without determining competency (if the defendant’s competency is at all in question) the validity of the criminal proceedings, the trial itself, and the ruling/outcome would be invalid. It is illogical to go ahead and convict someone who is unable to understanding what is going on during a

    Read More

  • John Doe: Not Guilty For First-Degree Murder

    1079 Words  | 3 Pages

    Foremost, John Doe never showed any definite signs of being unable to distinguish fantasy from reality at the time of the murder. This directly contradicts the definition of legal insanity, which states “Insanity is a mental illness is such a

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay: The Insanity Defense

    653 Words  | 2 Pages

    Anybody can claim that they are mentally ill until someone investigates. What state you live in also plays a part in how the county determines if you are “insane”. There are 51 types of insanity defense in the united states. There is one for each state law and 1 federal law. As a country, only 0.85% of defendants actually raises the insanity defense nationwide. That is a very small percentage based on how many people plea insanity in

    Read More

  • Comparing and Contrasting the Differences of Insanity, Automatism and Diminished Responsibility

    1543 Words  | 4 Pages

    There are two theories that justify punishment: retributivism according to which punishment ensures that justice is done, and utilitarianism which justifies punishment because it prevents further harm being done. The essence of defences is that those who do not freely choose to commit an offence should not be punished, especially in those cases where the defendant's actions are involuntary. All three of these defences concern mental abnormalities. Diminished responsibility is a partial statutory defence and a partial excuse. Insanity and automatism are excuses and defences of failure of proof. While automatism and diminished responsibility can only be raised by the defendant, insanity can be raised by the defence or the prosecution. It can be raised by the prosecution when the defendant pleads diminished responsibility or automatism. The defendant may also appeal against the insanity verdict. With insanity and diminished responsibility, the burden of proof is on the defendant. With automatism the burden of proof is on the prosecution and they must negate an automatism claim beyond reasonable doubt.

    Read More

  • Automatism, Insanity and Diminished Responsibility

    1568 Words  | 4 Pages

    The definition of abnormal will be reviewed in relation to each defence. In order to identify how these three defences compare and contrast, it is first important to understand their definition and application. The appropriate defence will be used once the facts of the cases have been distinguished and they meet the legal tests. The legal test of insanity is set out in M’Naghten’s Case: “to establish a defence.of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” To be specific, the defect of reason arises when the defendant is incapable of exercising normal reasoning

    Read More

  • Essay On Affirmative Defense

    484 Words  | 1 Pages

    The next kind of criminal defense is the insanity defense. The insanity defense is rarely used as an effective defense. To use the defense successfully, the defendant must have a serve mental disease or defect at the time of the crime. It must be clear that because of this disease or defect the defendant did not understand their actions. In using this defense,

    Read More

  • The Importance Of Competence In The Legal Process

    889 Words  | 2 Pages

    It has long been found necessary that a defendant be able to assist, understand and participate in the legal process. Putting on trial those who are so impaired that they cannot aid in their defense or are unaware of the nature and purpose of the proceedings against them is considered to challenge both the worth of the legal process and notions about fairness. An underlying mental disorder can hinder a defendant in challenging charges made against him or providing important facts about their case. In Dusky V United States (1960) the Supereme Court ruled that defendants must possess “sufficient present ability to consult with his/her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational undetstanding (and have a) rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him”. The words “sufficient” ability and “reasonable” understanding are reffering to the defendants capacities, which do not necessarily have to be flawless. Reference to “present” ability makes evident that we should only take into consideration the abilities of the defendant at the present time and during the future of the trial. A simple lack of knowledge of legal processes does not render somebody incompetent to stand trial. However, more then just the understanding of legal processes is necessary, a defendant must have the ability to appreciate and consider the facts of the case. Competence is ultimately decided by the judge, a mental health professional will however state their professional opinion that the judge will then take into consideration. Those who are found not competent to stand trial are commited to a mental institution until they regain competence. There are some instances where it is possible to involuntarily medicate a person if it will make ...

    Read More

More about Defence Of Insanity Essay

Open Document