Criminal defenses
Part of the common law series
Defenses to crime
Actual innocence
Excuse and exculpation
Defenses that deny the act:
Alibi  · Mistaken identity
Frameup  · Falsified evidence
False confession  · Automatism
Defenses that negate intent:
Infancy  · Entrapment
Insanity  · Mental disorder
M'Naghten Rules
Diminished responsibility
Mistake of law  · Mistake of fact
Intoxication
Defenses that justify the act:
Self defense  · Consent
Duress  · Necessity
Provocation
See also Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Other areas of the common law
Contract law  · Tort law  · Property law
Wills and trusts  · Evidence
Portals: Law  · Criminal justice

In a criminal trial, the insanity defenses are possible defenses by excuse, via which defendants may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were mentally ill at the time of their allegedly criminal actions. It is important to note that the legal definition of "insane" in this context is quite different from the psychiatric definitions of "mentally ill".^{[citation needed]} Also, the definition of insanity varies among jurisdictions. Image File history File links Scale_of_justice. ... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... Actual innocence is the most widely used - yet often the least studied - defense to crime. ... In jurisprudence, an excuse or justification is a form of immunity which must be distinguished from an exculpation. ... Mistaken Identity may refer to albums: Mistaken Identity (Kim Carnes album) Mistaken Identity (Delta Goodrem album) This is a disambiguation page: a list of articles associated with the same title. ... A frameup refers to the act of framing someone, that is, providing false evidence in order to prove someone guilty of a crime. ... Falsified evidence, forged evidence or tainted evidence is used to either convict an innocent person, or to guarantee conviction of a guilty person. ... False Confession was a hardcore punk band in the early 1980s that emerged in the Oxnard, California area. ... Automatism is a disassociative state where the individual suffering from it has no control over their actions. ... The defense of infancy is a form of defense known as an excuse so that defendants falling within the definition of an infant are excluded from criminal liability for their actions, if at the relevant time, they had not reached an age of criminal responsibility. ... In jurisprudence, entrapment is a procedural defense by which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they were induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit said acts. ... In a criminal trial, the insanity defenses are possible defenses by excuse, via which defendants may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were mentally ill at the time of their allegedly criminal actions. ... In criminal law of commonwealth countries, the defense of mental disorder - sometimes called the defence of mental illness - is a legal defence by excuse, by which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were at the time of their... The MNaghten Rules are used to establish insanity as an excuse to potential criminal liability, but the definitional criteria establish insanity in the legal and not the psychological sense. ... In criminal law, diminished responsibility (or diminished capacity) is a potential defense by excuse by which defendants argue that although they broke the law, they should not be held criminally liable for doing so, as their mental functions were diminished or impaired. ... Mistake of law is a defense sometimes raised in criminal cases, although rarely with any success. ... Mistake of law and mistake of fact are two types of defense by excuse, via which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law or liable for damages under a civil law action. ... An intoxication defense, in criminal law, is a defense by excuse, via which a defendant argues that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they were intoxicated. ... This article and defense of property deal with the legal concept of excused (sometimes termed justified) acts that might otherwise be illegal. ... Categories: | ... Duress (coercion) (as a term of jurisprudence) is a possible defense, via excuse, by which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law. ... In criminal law, necessity is a possible excuse for breaking the law. ... For the country-specific law, see provocation in English law. ... Criminal law (also known as penal law) is the body of statutory and common law that deals with crime and the legal punishment of criminal offenses. ... Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone has violated the criminal law. ... A contract is any promise or set of promises made by one party to another for the breach of which the law provides a remedy. ... In the common law, a tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. ... Property law is the area of law that governs the various forms of ownership in real property (land as distinct from personal or movable possessions) and in personal property, within the common law legal system. ... In the common law, a will or testament is a document by which a person (the testator) regulates the rights of others over his property or family after death. ... The law of trusts and estates is generally considered the body of law which governs the management of personal affairs and the disposition of property of an individual in anticipation and the event of such persons incapacity or death, also known as the law of successions in civil law. ... The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e. ... Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone has violated the criminal law. ... In most litigation under the common law adversarial system the defendant, perhaps with the assistance of counsel, may allege or present defenses (or defences) in order to avoid liability, civil or criminal. ... In jurisprudence, an excuse or justification is a form of immunity which must be distinguished from an exculpation. ... A defendant or defender is any party who is required to answer the complaint of a plaintiff or pursuer in a civil lawsuit before a court, or any party who has been formally charged or accused of violating a criminal statute. ... For other uses, see Crime (disambiguation). ... In the most general sense, a liability is anything that is a hindrance, or puts one at a disadvantage. ... See also Wikipedias Law Portal. ... Mental illness (or emotional disability, cognitive dysfunction) is a broad generic label for a category of illnesses that may include affective or emotional instability, behavioral dysregulation, and/or cognitive dysfunction or impairment. ...

The insanity defense is still in use in the United States, while Australia and Canada have renamed it the mental disorder defense, and Commonwealth nations tend to shy away from it partially due to the stigma of the word "insanity". The Commonwealth of Nations (CN), usually known as the Commonwealth, is a voluntary association of 53 independent sovereign states, almost all of which are former colonies of the United Kingdom. ...

In England and Wales, for instance, the defence of insanity is used fairly rarely. It is more common for someone with a mental illness to use the fact that they were mentally ill at the time of the offence as mitigation (which is distinct from a complete defence, which is what insanity is), or to use their mental state at the time of the trial to determine their sentence if found guilty (ie once found guilty they receive an order directing them to hospital rather than a prison sentence). When insanity is used, the person may still receive a hospital order.

The insanity defence is available in most jurisdictions that respect human rights and have a rule of law, though the extent to which it can or should be applied may differ widely between jurisdictions, e.g. as in cases involving the battered woman syndrome where self-defence is not available, a defendant may be forced to choose between an insanity defence and provocation. Human rights are rights which some hold to be inalienable and belonging to all humans. ... The rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedure. ... The battered woman defence is a formal term of art forming the basis of a legal defence representing that the person accused of an assault or murder was suffering from battered person syndrome at the material time. ... This article and defense of property deal with the legal concept of excused (sometimes termed justified) acts that might otherwise be illegal. ... For the country-specific law, see provocation in English law. ...

This defence is based on a principle that punishment is only reasonable if the defendant is capable of distinguishing right and wrong. A defendant making this argument might be said to be pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI). Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant on a subject as a response to some unwanted behavior or disobedience that the subject has displayed. ... In religion and ethics, evil refers to the bad aspects of the behaviour and reasoning of human beings —those which are deliberately void of conscience, and show a wanton desire for destruction. ...

See also Diminished responsibility. In criminal law, diminished responsibility (or diminished capacity) is a potential defense by excuse by which defendants argue that although they broke the law, they should not be held criminally liable for doing so, as their mental functions were diminished or impaired. ...

Psychiatric treatments

Those found to have been not guilty by reason of insanity are generally then required to undergo psychiatric treatment; except in the case of temporary insanity (see below). Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are generally placed in a mental institution. Unlike defendants who are found guilty of a crime, they are not institutionalized for a fixed period, but rather they are held within the institution until authorities determine that they are no longer a threat. Authorities making this decision tend to be cautious; as a result, defendants can often spend more time there than they would have in prison (had they been convicted). In Foucha v. Louisiana (1992) the Supreme Court ruled that a person could not be held "indefinitely". People can be cured of insanity with the proper treatment. Psychiatry is a medical speciality whose primary goal is to improve peoples mental well-being. ... 1992 (MCMXCII) was a leap year starting on Wednesday. ... The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States and leads the judicial branch of the United States federal government. ...

Psychosis

In practice, a finding of "not guilty by reason of insanity" almost always requires that the defendant have been in a state of active psychosis (at the time the law was broken) and usually such findings involve a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, but may even involve bi-polar disorder, particularly where the bi-polar disorder is accompanied by psychotic features. The use of the insanity defence in cases of psychopathy (anti-social personality disorder)is generally available only if the defendant has a co-occurring DSM-IV Axis I diagnosis, and then it becomes a difficult task for the forensic psychiatrist to determine whether the criminal act was the result of anti-social personality disorder or the Axis I diagnosis. Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state in which thought and perception are severely impaired. ... Diagnosis (from the Greek words dia = by and gnosis = knowledge) is the process of identifying a disease by its signs, symptoms and results of various diagnostic procedures. ... Manic depression, with its two principal sub-types, bipolar disorder and major depression, was first clinically described near the end of the 19th century by psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin, who published his account of the disease in his Textbook of Psychiatry. ... Psychopathy is a term derived from the Greek psych (mind) and pathos (suffering), and was once used to denote any form of mental illness. ... Antisocial personality disorder (APD) is a personality disorder which is often characterised by antisocial and impulsive behaviour. ... The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association, is the handbook used most often in diagnosing mental disorders in the United States and other countries. ...

Incompetency, intoxication, and mental illness

An important distinction is the difference between competency and criminal responsibility. Competency deals with whether a defendant is able to adequately assist his attorney in preparing a defence, make knowing decisions concerning trial strategy and whether or not to plead guilty or accept a plea agreement. Criminal responsibility deals with whether a defendant can be held legally responsible for his criminal behavior. Thus, competency deals with the defendant's present condition, while criminal responsibility deals with the defendant's state of mind when he committed the crime.

In the United States, a trial in which the insanity defence is invoked typically involves the testimony of psychiatrists who will argue that the defendant is or is not insane. If there is agreement between the prosecution and defence that the defendant is insane then typically a jury trial is waived and a trial occurs in front of a judge in which evidence is presented and a judgment rendered. If there is disagreement between the prosecution and defence, each will typically present expert witnesses to a jury which will decide whose witnesses to believe. Psychiatry is a branch of medicine that studies and treats mental and emotional disorders (see mental illness). ...

The legal concept of insanity is different from the psychiatric concept of mental illness. Frequently, a person whose mental illness is not under dispute will be determined sane as the court will argue that despite a "mental illness" the defendant should still be held responsible; such a ruling is known as either a Guilty but Mentally Ill (GBMI) or a Guilty but Insane verdict. Michigan (1975) was the first state to create a GBMI verdict. Sometimes a person without mental illness can be found to be insane; for example, a person who is acting under the influence of a drug that was involuntarily administered (though voluntary intoxication has been rejected by most jurisdictions as a defence to crime). (See: Intoxication defense) Psychiatry is a medical speciality whose primary goal is to improve peoples mental well-being. ... Mental illness (or emotional disability, cognitive dysfunction) is a broad generic label for a category of illnesses that may include affective or emotional instability, behavioral dysregulation, and/or cognitive dysfunction or impairment. ... Official language(s) None (English, de-facto) Capital Lansing Largest city Detroit Area  Ranked 11th  - Total 97,990 sq mi (253,793 km²)  - Width 239 miles (385 km)  - Length 491 miles (790 km)  - % water 41. ... 1975 (MCMLXXV) was a common year starting on Wednesday. ... An intoxication defense, in criminal law, is a defense by excuse, via which a defendant argues that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they were intoxicated. ...

History of the insanity defence

The concept of defence by insanity has existed since ancient Greece and Rome. Edward II, under English Common law, declared that a person was insane if their mental capacity was no more than that of a "Wild Beast". The first complete transcript of an insanity trial dates to 1724. The fate of insane defendants was uncertain in the United Kingdom until the Criminal Lunatics Act 1800, following the acquittal of James Hadfield, provided for their indefinite detention. Ancient history is the study of significant cultural and political events from the beginning of human history until the Early Middle Ages. ... The Roman Empire was a phase of the ancient Roman civilization characterized by an autocratic form of government. ... This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ... Events January 14 - King Philip V of Spain abdicates the throne February 20 - The premiere of Giulio Cesare, an Italian opera by George Frideric Handel, takes place in London June 23 - Treaty of Constantinople signed. ... The Criminal Lunatics Act 1800 (39 & 40 Geo. ... James Hadfield or Hatfield (1771/1772 – January 23, 1841) attempted to assassinate George III of the United Kingdom in 1800 but was acquitted of attempted murder by reason of insanity. ...

However, in the United States, the pioneer in the insanity defence could be credited to New Hampshire Chief Justice, Charles Cogswell Doe. In Ford v. Wainwright 477 U.S. 399 (1986), the US Supreme Court ruled that insane prisoners cannot be executed. The insanity plea was legalized in the United States with the M'Naghten Rules, which came as a direct result of the attempted assassination of British Prime Minister Robert Peel in 1843. The insanity plea can be used if "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 of the wrongfulness of his acts." The key is that the defendant could not appreciate the nature of his actions during the commission of the crime, not before or after. The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States and leads the judicial branch of the United States federal government. ... The MNaghten Rules are used to establish insanity as an excuse to potential criminal liability, but the definitional criteria establish insanity in the legal and not the psychological sense. ... Sir Robert Walpole, the first Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. ... This article is about the British Prime Minister. ... 1843 was a common year starting on Sunday (see link for calendar). ...

Controversy over the insanity defence

There are many different interpretations of "insane" and many different notions of how to deal with insane individuals.

Some opponents of the insanity defence, including Thomas Szasz, believe that psychiatry itself emerged as a way to justify mercy, of making persons "exceptional" and thus not deserving of the harsh punishment we would as a society wish to dole out to people who had extremely selfish or widely shared rationales for their actions. Since extreme selfishness ("self-absorption") or broadly shared resentments (e.g. envy of the rich, hatred of another ethnic group) are somewhat infectious behaviors, some argue that schizophrenia and other "mental illness" were defined into existence to protect those whose motives and behaviors were not so infectious, and whose offenses were thus unlikely to be repeated by others. The cost of this system of mercy, however, was to classify the psychiatrist and patient in an ongoing unequal-power relationship. (See myth of mental illness and antipsychiatry). Photograph by Jeffrey A. Schaler. ... Psychiatry is a branch of medicine that studies and treats mental and emotional disorders (see mental illness). ... A patient is any person who receives medical attention, care, or treatment [1]. A patient is often ill or injured and is being treated by, or in need of treatment by, a physician or other medical professional. ... Beginning in the 1960s, a movement called anti-psychiatry claimed that psychiatric patients are not ill but are individuals that do not share the same consensus reality as most people in society. ... Beginning in the 1960s, a movement called anti-psychiatry claimed that psychiatric patients are not ill but are individuals that do not share the same consensus reality as most people in society. ...

In ancient Rome, Latin tribes held various religious beliefs that included considering the insane to be divinely blessed, and therefore beyond the reach of human jurisdiction. It is alleged that insanity as an excuse was introduced in the ancient Roman legal system based upon this tradition. Some modern critics claim that this precedent precludes the insanity defence's validity in a modern secular state like the United States with a Constitutional doctrine of Separation of church and state. The separation of church and state is a political doctrine which states that the institutions of the state or national government should be kept separate from those of religious institutions. ...

The public tends to believe that the insanity defence is used more often than it actually is, possibly because insanity-defence cases tend to be of a high-profile nature. The insanity plea is used in the U.S Criminal Justice System in less than 1% of all criminal cases, and only one fourth of those defendants are found "not guilty by reason of insanity". for other uses please see Crime (disambiguation) A crime is an act that violates a political or moral law. ...

Some U.S. courts have begun to ban the use of the insanity defence and a 1994 Supreme Court ruling upheld the right of Montana to do so. Idaho and Utah have also banned this defence. In 2006, the Supreme Court decided Clark v. Arizona, reaffirming the prerogative of the states to deviate from or even totally abolish the insanity defense. 1994 (MCMXCIV) was a common year starting on Saturday of the Gregorian calendar, and was designated as the International Year of the Family and the International Year of the Sport and the Olympic Ideal by United Nations. ... The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C., (large image) The Supreme Court of the United States, located in Washington, D.C., is the highest court (see supreme court) in the United States; that is, it has ultimate judicial authority within the United States... Official language(s) English Capital Helena Largest city Billings Area  Ranked 4th  - Total 147,165 sq mi (381,156 km²)  - Width 255 miles (410 km)  - Length 630 miles (1,015 km)  - % water 1  - Latitude 44°26 N to 49° N  - Longitude 104°2 W to 116°2 W Population  Ranked... Official language(s) None Capital Boise Largest city Boise Area  Ranked 14th  - Total 83,642 sq. ... Official language(s) English Capital Salt Lake City Largest city Salt Lake City Area  Ranked 13th  - Total 84,876 sq mi (219,887 km²)  - Width 270 miles (435 km)  - Length 350 miles (565 km)  - % water 3. ... Holding Due process does not prohibit Arizonas use of an insanity test stated solely in terms of the capacity to tell whether an act charged as a crime was right or wrong. ...

One novel use of the insanity defence occurred in the case of Lee Boyd Malvo, who plead not guilty by reason of insanity in the autumn 2003 Beltway sniper shootings. Many legal experts believe ^{[citation needed]} that the purpose of raising the defence was not to gain an acquittal but to allow the defence to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence about Malvo's upbringing, his relationship with John Allen Muhammad, and his mental state. This evidence was intended to gain the jury's sympathy so that they would not invoke the death penalty, and was successful at doing so. Lee Boyd Malvo (left) Lee Boyd Malvo (alias John Lee Malvo or Malik Malvo) (born February 18, 1985), along with John Allen Muhammad, was arrested on October 24, 2002 in connection with the Beltway sniper attacks. ... 2003 (MMIII) was a common year starting on Wednesday of the Gregorian calendar. ... Locations of the 15 sniper attacks numbered chronologically. ... John Allen Muhammad in court John Allen Muhammad (born John Allen Williams on December 31, 1960) is an American spree killer. ... Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the State as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offenses. ...

Rules of appreciation

In this section, various rules applied in United States jurisdiction with respect to insanity defences are discussed.

The M'Naghten Rules

The M'Naghten Rules (1843) 10 C & F 200, state, inter alia, that a person may be "insane" if "...at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, arising from a 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." These rules are, as of 2005, in force in the majority of common law jurisdictions. The MNaghten Rules are used to establish insanity as an excuse to potential criminal liability, but the definitional criteria establish insanity in the legal and not the psychological sense. ... 2005 is a common year starting on Saturday of the Gregorian calendar. ... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ...

The irresistible impulse

There is also an idea of an irresistible impulse, which argues that a person may have known an act was illegal; but, because of a mental impairment, they couldn't control their actions. In 1994, Lorena Bobbitt was found not guilty of the felony of "malicious wounding" (the equivalent of mayhem), when her defence argued that an irresistible impulse led her to cut off her husband's penis. In the late nineteenth century some states and federal courts in the United States, dissatisfied with the M'Naghten rule, adopted the irresistible impulse test. This test, which had first been used in Ohio in 1834, emphasized the inability to control one's actions. A person who committed a crime during an uncontrollable "fit of passion" was considered insane and not guility under this test. In jurisprudence, irresistible impulse is a defense by excuse, in this case some sort of insanity, in which the defendant argues that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they couldnt control their actions. ... 1994 (MCMXCIV) was a common year starting on Saturday of the Gregorian calendar, and was designated as the International Year of the Family and the International Year of the Sport and the Olympic Ideal by United Nations. ... Lorena Bobbitt, née Lorena Gallo (born in 1968 or 1969 in Bucay, Ecuador) is an American woman who became famous after cutting off the penis of her husband, John Wayne Bobbitt. ... Mayhem, under the common law of crimes, consisted of the intentional and wanton removal of a body part that would handicap a persons ability to defend themselves in combat. ...

Also, there was a case on Mad Dogs. They tried to prove to the judges that they were insane by chewing up paper on the judges desk.

The Durham rule

The Durham Rule or "product test" was set forth by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1954 and states that "... an accused is not criminally responsible if her unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect". After the 1970s, US jurisdictions have tended to not recognize this argument as it places emphasis on "mental disease or defect" and thus on testimony by psychiatrists and is argued to be somewhat ambiguous. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, known informally as the D.C. Circuit, is the federal appellate court for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. ... 1954 (MCMLIV) was a common year starting on Friday of the Gregorian calendar. ... The 1970s decade refers to the years from 1970 to 1979, inclusive. ...

The Insanity defence Reform Act (US)

The Insanity defence Reform Act, enacted by Congress in 1984 in response to the verdict in the Hinckley trial, and codified at Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 17, states that a person accused of a crime can be judged not guilty by reason of insanity if "the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of her acts."

The substantial capacity test

The substantial capacity test was defined by the American Law Institute, in its Model Penal Code. This argues that insanity should be defined as a lack of substantial capacity to control one's behavior. Substantial capacity is defined as: "the mental capacity needed to understand the wrongfulness of [an] act, or to conform...behavior to the...law." This is related to the M'Naghten Rule and the idea of 'irresistible impulse'. The American Law Institute (ALI) was established in 1923 to promote the clarification and simplification of American common law and its adaptation to changing social needs. ... Generally The Model Penal Code (MPC) is a statutory text which was developed by the American Law Institute (ALI) in 1962. ...

The Brawner rule

The Brawner Rule (1972) argues that insanity should be decided by a jury. Under this proposal, juries are allowed to decide the "insanity question" as they see fit. 1972 (MCMLXXII) was a leap year starting on Saturday. ... A jury is a sworn body of persons convened to render a rational, impartial verdict and a finding of fact on a legal question officially submitted to them, or to set a penalty or judgment in a jury trial of a court of law. ...

Temporary insanity

The notion of temporary insanity argues that a defendant was insane, but is now sane. A defendant found to have been temporarily insane will often be released without any requirements of psychiatric treatment. This defence was first used by U.S. Congressman Daniel Sickles of New York in 1859 after he had killed his wife's lover, Philip Barton Key, but was most used during the 1940s and 1950s. Since then, it has not been as successful. Seal of the House of Representatives The United States House of Representatives (or simply the House) is one of the two chambers of the United States Congress, the other being the Senate. ... Portrait of Daniel Sickles during the Civil War Daniel Edgar Sickles (October 20, 1819 – May 3, 1914) was a colorful and controversial American politician, Union general in the American Civil War, and diplomat. ... Official language(s) English de facto Capital Albany Largest city New York City Area  Ranked 27th  - Total 54,520 sq mi (141,205 km²)  - Width 285 miles (455 km)  - Length 330 miles (530 km)  - % water 13. ... 1859 (MDCCCLIX) is a common year starting on Saturday of the Gregorian calendar (or a common year starting on Monday of the Julian calendar). ... Philip Barton Key (b:1818, Georgetown, DC - d:27 February 1859, Washington, DC) was the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, the son of Francis Scott Key, and a murder victim. ... // Events and trends World War II was a truly global conflict with many facets: immense human suffering, fierce indoctrination, and the use of new, extremely devastating weapons such as the atomic bomb. ... The 1950s were the decade that traditionally speaking, spanned the years 1950 through 1959. ...

Scottish law

The Scottish Law Commission in its Discussion Paper No 122 on Insanity and Diminished Responsibility (2003) [1] pp.16/18 confirms that the law has not substantially changed from the position stated in Hume's Commentaries:

We may next attend to the case of those unfortunate persons, who have plead the miserable defence of idiocy or insanity. Which condition, if it is not an assumed or imperfect, but a genuine and thorough insanity, and is proved by the testimony of intelligent witnesses, makes the act like that of an infant, and equally bestows the privilege of an entire exemption from any manner of pain; Cum alterum innocentia concilii tuetur, alterum fati infelicitas excusat. I say, where the insanity is absolute, and is duly proved: For if reason and humanity enforce the plea in these circumstances, it is no less necessary to observe a caution and reserve in applying the law, as shall hinder it from being understood, that there is any privilege in a case of mere weakness of intellect, or a strange and moody humour, or a crazy and capricious or irritable temper. In none of these situations does or can the law excuse the offender. Because such constitutions are not exclusive of a competent understanding of the true state of the circumstances in which the deed is done, nor of the subsistence of some steady and evil passion, grounded in those circumstances, and directed to a certain object. To serve the purpose of a defence in law, the disorder must therefore amount to an absolute alienation of reason, ut continua mentis alienatione, omni intellectu careat - such a disease as deprives the patient of the knowledge of the true aspect and position of things about him - hinders him from distinguishing friend from foe - and gives him up to the impulse of his own distempered fancy.

The phrase "absolute alienation of reason" is still regarded as at the core of the defence in the modern law (see HM Advocate v Kidd 1960 JC 61 and Brennan v HM Advocate (1977) JC 38).

External links

• Crime Library: misunderstanding of and criticism against the insanity plea
• The Temporary Insanity defence in California
• The Insanity defence: A Closer Look

Specific Articles

• Supreme Court Insanity Doctrine (broken link)

References

• Bienstock, Mothers Who Kill Their Children and Postpartum Psychosis, (2003) Vol. 32, No. 3 Southwestern University Law Review, 451.
• Dressler, Joshua, Reaffirming the Moral Legitimacy of the Doctrine of Diminished Capacity: A Brief Reply to Professor Morse, (1984) Vol. 75 Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 953.
• Keram, The Insanity defence and Game Theory: Reflections on Texas v. Yates, (2002) Vol. 30, No. 4 Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 470.
• Schopp, Robert F. (1991) Automatism, Insanity, and the Psychology of Criminal Responsibility, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-40150-X.
• Schopp, Robert F. (2001) Competence, Condemnation, and Commitment: An Integrated Theory of Mental Health Law, American Psychological Assn., ISBN 1-55798-745-9.
• Slobogin, An End to Insanity: Recasting the Role of Mental Disability in Criminal Cases, (2000) Vol. 86 Virginia Law Review, 1199.