A defendant is not culpable for an act that, because of a psychological infirmity, he or she did not know he or she was committing. This conclusion comports with criminal law's fundamental conception of culpability. First, a defendant is deemed insane if they were incapable of knowing what they were doing at the time committing the object offense. The test is bifurcated into two components, each of which is individually sufficient to substantiate an insanity defense. This analysis focuses on an actor's cognition. The rule created a presumption of sanity unless the defense proved "at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring 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 what he was doing was wrong." The " M'Naghten rule" was a standard to be applied by the jury, after hearing medical testimony from prosecution and defense experts. However, the case caused a public uproar, and Queen Victoria ordered the court to develop a stricter test for insanity. The court acquitted M'Naghten "by reason of insanity," and he was placed in a mental institution for the rest of his life. Englishman Daniel M'Naghten shot and killed the secretary of the British Prime Minister, believing that the Prime Minister was conspiring against him. The first famous legal test for insanity came in 1843, in the M'Naghten case. So long as a defendant is deemed incompetent, the insanity defense becomes moot as the defendant cannot stand trial. The threshold for establishing competency is often identified as notoriously low. A defendant may move at any time for a hearing to determine competency, which involves the submission of supporting evidence and some form of a psychological evaluation. As articulated by the Supreme Court in Dusky, a defendant is incompetent if he or she is incapable of rationally communicating with his or her attorney or rationally comprehending the nature of the proceedings against him or her. In accordance with due process requirements, a criminal defendant cannot stand trial if he or she is deemed legally incompetent. CompetencyĪn important procedural corollary to the insanity defense involves the establishment of legal competency, otherwise known as competence to stand trial. Hinckley, concerning the assassination attempt against then-President Ronald Reagan. One of the most famous recent uses of the insanity defense came in United States v. A diminished capacity defense can be used to negate the element of intent to commit a crime. While "reason of insanity" is a full defense to a crime - that is, pleading "reason of insanity" is the equivalent of pleading "not guilty" - "diminished capacity" is merely pleading to a lesser crime. Diminished CapacityĪlthough the defense known as "diminished capacity" bears some resemblance to the "reason of insanity" defense (in that both examine the mental competence of the defendant), there are significant differences between them. The insanity defense is classified as an excuse defense, rather than a justification defense. In an insanity defense, the defendant admits the action but asserts a lack of culpability based on mental illness. There is an urgent need to initiate formal graduation course, setup Forensic Psychiatric Training and Clinical Services Providing Centers across the country to increase the manpower resources and to provide fair and speedy trail.Ĭriminal responsibility Indian Penal Code Section-84 insanity defense legal insanity medical insanity.The insanity defense refers to a defense that a defendant can plead in a criminal trial. Researchers present a model for evaluating a defendant's mental status examination and briefly discuss the legal standards and procedures for the assessment of insanity defense evaluations. This article focuses on the recent Supreme Court decision on insanity defense and standards employed in Indian court. It is hard to determine legal insanity, and even harder to successfully defend it in court. The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by a "preponderance of the evidence" which is similar to a civil case. This means that just suffering from a mental disorder is not sufficient to prove insanity. Insanity defense is a legal concept, not a clinical one (medical one). It is based on the assumption that at the time of the crime, the defendant was suffering from severe mental illness and therefore, was incapable of appreciating the nature of the crime and differentiating right from wrong behavior, hence making them not legally accountable for crime. Insanity defense is primarily used in criminal prosecutions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |