The M’Naghten Rule
The M’Naghten rule is a test for criminal insanity and states that, if at the time of the offence, the accused had a disease of the mind and that he was unable to know that his act was wrong. The application of this test determines whether the accused was sane at the time of the crime’s commission. Subsequently, by this rule, a criminal is not guilty by reason of insanity if the accused was so insane that they did not know the nature of his actions or, if he knew the nature of his action but was so insane did not know what he was doing was wrong.
The M’Naghten rule originates from England in 1843, named for the M’Naghten case. Daniel M’Naghten shot and killed the secretary of the British Prime Minister, mistaking the secretary for the Prime Minister in the belief that the Prime Minister was conspiring against him. During M’Naghten’s trial, nine witnesses testified to the fact that he was insane and he was acquitted by the jury finding him “not guilty by reason of insanity”.
However, Queen Victoria was not pleased with this outcome, requesting that the House of Lords review the verdict with a panel of judges. The jury verdict was reversed and a new formulation emerged from their review stating that “a defendant
…show more content…
should not be held responsible for his actions if he could not tell that his actions were wrong at the time he committed them”. This became the basis of the law that governed legal responsibility in the cases involving insanity in England. Within the case R v Porter [1933] HCA 1, Bertram Edward Porter had been charged for the murder of his infant son. It is suggested that Porter had a nervous breakdown, barely slept and had taken a substantial amount of aspirin and caffeine after becoming estranged from his wife. After a final unsuccessful attempt to reconcile with his wife, he decided to commit suicide and kill his child as well. Porter had administered his son with strychnine but was interrupted by police before he could inject himself. Porter was found not guilty on the ground of insanity at the time of commission of the act charged. The M’Naghten rule, in relation to R v Porter are evidently similar in the aspect of criminal insanity. Both cases present an individual acquitted on the ground of insanity. As the M’Naghten case set a precedent for cases that pertain matters in regards to criminal insanity, under common law, the M’Naghten rule has the ability to be used as a defence for an individual charged with murder. In order for mental illness to be used as a complete defence, it would be necessary for it to be proven that the accused did, in fact have a mental illness during the time of the crime. The severity of the actus reus the accused committed governs whether an evaluation of the mental state of the accused is necessary, meaning that the defence of criminal insanity is only applicable within indictable offences.
In order for the defence of criminal insanity to be considered, the severity of the crime but have been one that expressed the standard to be defined as indictable. This is due to the fact that a summary offence would not qualify for a trial before a jury and that absolving one of a summary offence such as driving under the influence of alcohol would be unsuitable for the asperity of the crime. As R v Porter was a murder case, therefore indictable, it would be suitable for the criminal insanity defence to be
proposed. The amplitude in which the defence must accommodate sufficient evidence is set in precedent cases which in this instance, is the M’Naghten case. Within the M’Naghten case, it was evident that M’Naghten was delusional and that he suffered from acute insanity from testification given by witnesses. The defence would have to present evidence to the jury which would demonstrate the incapability of the accused to function in the same state of one with a sound mind. In conjunction to R v Porter, the medical evidence of Porter’s near breakdown and deep depression was a sufficient amount of evidence for the jury to acquit Porter on the ground of insanity. Within the M’Naghten case, the act of murder was made under compulsion of the mental state of the accused. Apparent in the evidence supplied at the trial of M’Naghten, it was shown that M’Naghten committed the crime due to a voice in his head. This indicates that the crime committed was compelled by the mental instability of M’Naghten. This concept is suggested in Porter’s case within the medical evidence of Porter’s near breakdown as a result of the estrangement with his wife. This demonstrates that one’s mens rea can be manipulated as a result of the instability of the mind. A defendant would use this as a crucial aspect in the defence of one accused with murder as it illustrates the lack of stability of the accused’s mind. In defending one accused with murder, it is imperative to entice the jury that the insanity of the accused was an elementary factor during the commission of the crime.
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
The Supreme Court formulated the standards of competency in the criminal process, in the case of Dusky v, united states, 362 U.S 402 (1960). The standards set by the court are broad, vague and open-textured. It allows clinical evaluations in the interpretation and application of the test. The conviction of a defendant while he or she has mental illness or incompetence violates due process.
Many criminals find many ways to get out of jail or being sentenced to death, what goes through their minds? Pleading insanity means to not be guilty of a crime committed due to reason of mental illness. In many cases criminals get away with pleading insanity, but in the end does it always work out? Bruco Eastwood pleaded insanity and therefore his background, crime, and where he is now will be crucial to Brucos’ insanity plea.
The M’Naghten rule required anyone who plead insanity to undergo a test of insanity, or the right-wrong test, where they had to prove at the time of the crime that they did not know what they were doing was wrong. Using this test the jury had to figure out two questions. One, did the defendant know at the time of the crime what the were doing was wrong, or two, did the defendant understand what he was doing was wrong (Kollins). The M’Naghten rule was a huge step in helping with the insanity plea. Furthermore it helped ease the use of it because people had to begin to prove themselves more to the court. Having to prove themselves to the court makes it more difficult to allow them to get out of the crime they committed. In the years following many rules have been created. One of the most recently made is the Federal Rule. Ronald Reagan was a big part in having this law passed. This law states that the defendant is required to prove, “by clear and convincing evidence” that "at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts
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
For those that don’t know, the insanity plea, as defined by Cornell Law, is based on the fact that a person accused of a crime can acknowledge that he/she committed the crime, but argue that he/she is not responsible for it because of his or her mental illness, by pleading “not guilty by reason of insanity”. This first became a problem in 1843. Daniel M’Naughten was trialed for shooting the secretary of the Prime Minister in attempt to assassinate the Prime Minister himself. It was said that M’Naughten thought the Prime Minister was the person behind all his personal and financial problems. The jury ruled him “not guilty by reason of insanity”. The reason for the verdict was M’Naughten...
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.
quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not
Prior to taking this course, I generally believed that people were rightly in prison due to their actions. Now, I have become aware of the discrepancies and flaws within the Criminal Justice system. One of the biggest discrepancies aside from the imprisonment rate between black and white men, is mental illness. Something I wished we covered more in class. The conversation about mental illness is one that we are just recently beginning to have. For quite a while, mental illness was not something people talked about publicly. This conversation has a shorter history in American prisons. Throughout the semester I have read articles regarding the Criminal Justice system and mental illness in the United States. Below I will attempt to describe how the Criminal Justice system fails when they are encountered by people with mental illnesses.
Former U.S president Ronald Reagan was shot by a man named John Hinckley in the year 1981. The president along with many of his entourage survived the shooting despite the heavy infliction of internal and external injuries. The Hinckley case is a classic example of the 'not guilty by reason of insanity' case (NGRI). The criminal justice system under which all men and women are tried holds a concept called mens rea, a Latin phrase that means "state of mind". According to this concept, Hinckley committed his crime oblivious of the wrongfulness of his action. A mentally challenged person, including one with mental retardation, who cannot distinguish between right and wrong is protected and exempted by the court of law from being unfairly punished for his/her crime. (1)
For many years the public has fought with the idea that a mentally ill person should not be held accountable for criminal crimes (Allnutt, S., Samuels, A., & O'Driscoll, C. 2007). In states Montana, Idaho, and Utah, does not consent for the defendant to plea an insanity defense. The defendants must be capable to stand trial, but they do have the right to present evidence of a mental disease as evidence that they did not have the required intent ("A Crime Of Insanity - Insanity On Trial | FRONTLINE | PBS", n.d.). The state of Georgia uses a reformed style of the M'Naghten Rule ("The Insanity Defense Among the States - FindLaw", n.d.). Daniel M’Naghten was an Eng...
... or by giving them written tests. Some psychiatrists call mental diseases a myth. The insanity defense would require both a mental disease and a relationship between the illness and the criminal behavior, neither of which could be scientifically proven. Of the criminals both acquitted and convicted using the insanity defense, a good number have shown conclusive evidence of recidivism. Many dangerous persons are allowed to return to the streets and many non-dangerous persons are forced into facilities due to an insanity plea adding further confusion and injustice within both the legal and medical systems. The insanity defense is impossible to maintain on the foundation of rules such as the M'Naghten Rule, and the relationship between law and psychiatry must be reinstated on a more scientific level, based on the neurological work now going on in the brain sciences.
In an article titled, What is Forensic Psychology, Anyway?, John Brigham attempts to explain the beginnings of psychology and law; Forensics Psychology. Brigham explains that, “forensic psychology involves the interaction of psychology and the legal process” (Brigham 274). Brigham further highlights a historical case and the precedent established by the House of Lords through the induction of the McNaughten Rule, which translates, “To establish a defense on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring under such defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know nature and quality of the act he was doing, or he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong” (Finkel, 1988, p21; Brigham p275). Brigham explains that the concept of introducing psychology into the field of law ...
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.
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