|
The M'Naghten 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. The guidelines were formulated by the House of Lords in M'Naghten's Case (1843) 10 C & F 200.[1] In some countries, when the Rules are satisfied, the accused is subject to a special verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity", and the sentence is either a mandatory and indeterminate period of treatment in a secure hospital facility or at the discretion of the court depending on the country. The defence is recognised in Australia, Canada, England and Wales, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland, and most U.S. states with the exception of Montana, Idaho, and Utah. Image File history File links Scale_of_justice. ...
English law is a formal term of art that describes the law for the time being in force in England and Wales. ...
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). ...
In many common law jurisdictions (e. ...
A hybrid offence or dual offence are the special offences in Canadian criminal law where the prosecution may choose whether to proceed with a summary offence or an indictment. ...
Regulatory offences are a class of crime in which the standard for proving culpability has been lowered so as not to require any fault elements. ...
A lesser included offense, in criminal law, is a crime for which all of the elements necessary to impose liability are also elements found in a more serious crime. ...
Actus reus is the action (or inaction, in the case of criminal negligence and similar crimes which are sometimes called acts of omission) which, in combination with the mens rea (guilty mind), produces criminal liability in common law based criminal law jurisdictions such as the United States, United Kingdom. ...
In law, causation is the name given to the process of testing whether defendants should be fixed with liability for the outcome to their acts and omissions that injure or cause loss to others. ...
The mens rea is the Latin term for guilty mind used in the criminal law. ...
In the criminal law, intention is one of the three general classes of mens rea necessary to constitute a conventional as opposed to strict liability crime. ...
In English criminal law, intention is one of the types of mens rea (Latin for guilty mind) that, when accompanied by an actus reus (Latin for guilty act) constitutes a crime. ...
In the criminal law, recklessness (sometimes also termed wilful blindness) is one of the three possible classes of mental state constituting mens rea (the Latin for guilty mind). To commit an offence of ordinary as opposed to strict liability, the prosecution must be able to prove both an actus reus...
Criminal negligence, in the realm of criminal common law, is a legal term of art for a state of mind which is careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or reckless; it is the mens rea part of a crime which, if occurring simultaneously with the actus reus, gives rise to criminal...
In the criminal law, corporate liability is an aspect of criminal vicarious liability and determines the extent to which a corporation as a fictitious person can be convicted of offences committed by the natural persons it employs. ...
The legal principle of vicarious liability applies to hold one person liable for the actions of another when engaged in some form of joint or collective activity. ...
In criminal law, strict liability is liability where mens rea (Latin for guilty mind) does not have to be proved in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for guilty act) although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the...
In the criminal law, an omission or failure to act will constitute an actus reus (Latin for guilty act) and give rise to liability only when the law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that duty. ...
Concurrence or Simultaneity is a legal term, from Western jurisprudence, referring to the simultaneous occurrence of actus reus (bad action) and mens rea (bad mind), which must be present for a crime to have occurred; except in crimes of strict liability. ...
Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for ignorance of the law is no excuse) is a public policy holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content...
An inchoate offense is a crime. ...
In English criminal law, incitement is an anticipatory common law offence and is the act of persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime. ...
In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law at some time in the future, so a natural person identified with the mind of a legal entity cannot conspire with the company alone. ...
An accessory is a person who assists in or conceals a crime, but does not actually participate in the commission of the crime. ...
The crime of attempt occurs when a person does an act amounting to more than mere preparation for a criminal offense, with specific intent to commit a crime, if that act tends but fails to effect the commission of the offense intended. ...
In criminal law, the doctrine of common purpose, common design or joint enterprise refers to the situation where two or more people embark on a project with a common purpose that results in the commission of a crime. ...
Categories: | ...
For the law in other criminal jurisdictions, see diminished responsibility. ...
For a general discussion of the principles, see duress In English law, duress is a defence which allows a limited excuse in favour of those who commit crimes because they are forced or compelled to do so against their will by the threats of another. ...
For the discussion on general principles and policy, see necessity In English law, the defence of necessity recognises that there may be situations of such an overwhelming urgency, that a person must be allowed to respond by breaking the law. ...
For an description of the general principles, see provocation (legal). ...
In English criminal law, the defence of self-defence provides for the right of people to act in a manner that would be otherwise unlawful in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves or others or to prevent any crime. ...
In criminal law, a common assault is a crime when the defendant either puts another in fear of injury or actually commits a battery. ...
In many common law jurisdictions, the crime of battery involves an injury or other contact upon the person of another in a manner likely to cause bodily harm. ...
It has been suggested that Assault causing bodily harm be merged into this article or section. ...
Grievous bodily harm or GBH is a type of assault resulting in, for example, broken bones or cuts to the skin. ...
This page is a candidate to be copied to Wikisource. ...
Corporate manslaughter is a term in English law for an act of homicide committed by a company. ...
Harassment refers to a wide spectrum of offensive behavior. ...
Under English law, the Criminal Damage Act 1971 is the main statute covering damage to property. ...
The Malicious Damage Act of 1861 is a law now mostly concerned with damage to property in the transport sector of society. ...
Nuisance is a common law tort. ...
The Theft Act 1968 (1968 c. ...
Thief redirects to here. ...
Dishonesty is a term which in common usage may be defined as the act of being dishonest; to act without honesty; a lack of probity, to cheat, lying or being deliberately deceptive; lacking in integrity; to be knavish, perfidious, corrupt or treacherous; charlatanism or quackery. ...
TWOC is an acronym standing for Taken Without Owners Consent. ...
For the purposes of English law, deception is defined in s15(4) Theft Act 1968 and applies to the deception offences in the Theft Act 1968, and to the Theft Act 1978 and the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996. ...
In English law, the main deception offences are defined in the Theft Act 1968 (TA68), the Theft Act 1978 and the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996. ...
Blackmail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia /**/ @import /skins-1. ...
A cars handling is a description of the way the car performs, particularly during cornering. ...
The Theft Act 1978 supplemented to earlier Theft Act 1968. ...
Forgery is the process of making or adapting objects or documents (see false document), with the intention to deceive. ...
Computer crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia /**/ @import /skins-1. ...
Bribery is a crime defined by Blacks Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions as an official or other person in discharge of a public or legal duty. ...
Perjury is lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing. ...
Obstruction of justice, in a common law state, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. ...
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. ...
In jurisprudence, an excuse or justification is a form of immunity which must be distinguished from an exculpation. ...
This article is about the British House of Lords. ...
Daniel MNaghten (Pronounced McNaughten) (1815? – 1865) was a Scottish woodsman who assassinated English civil servant Edward Drummond while suffering from paranoid delusions. ...
In law, a sentence forms the final act of a judge-ruled process, and also the symbolic principal act connected to his function. ...
A court is an official, public forum which a sovereign establishes by lawful authority to adjudicate disputes, and to dispense civil, labour, administrative and criminal justice under the law. ...
A U.S. state is any one of the 50 states which have membership of the federation known as the United States of America (USA or U.S.). The separate state governments and the U.S. federal government share sovereignty. ...
Explanation
Insanity as a defence operates as an excuse, i.e. it excludes the accused from the process of a trial which makes it consistent with public policies about criminal responsibility and the function of criminal law. At one level, it is a rationale of compassion, accepting that it is morally wrong to treat a person as criminal if, because of severe mental illness or intellectual disability, he or she is temporarily or permanently deprived of the capacity either to choose whether to obey law or to distinguish right from wrong. This may suggest that the insanity provisions operate, at the most fundamental level, to negate the mens rea element in any offence (cf doli incapax in which children are excused from criminal liability due to a presumed incapacity to form a criminal intent). A more utilitarian justification for criminalising any given behaviour is as a deterrent. Yet, if this class of potential offender is genuinely insane, no law or threat of punishment will be effective as a deterrent. Indeed, if the state is seen to punish the mentally ill, this may actually undermine public confidence in the penal system. Thus, the better rationale for the choice of compulsory medical treatment is a general social duty to encourage rehabilitation. 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 legal parlance, a trial is an event in which parties to a dispute present information (in the form of evidence) in a formal setting, usually a court, before a judge, jury, or other designated finder of fact, in order to achieve a resolution to their dispute. ...
Public policy or ordre public is the body of fundamental principles that underpin the operation of legal systems in each state. ...
Criminal law (also known as penal law) is the body of common law that punishes criminals for committing offences against the state. ...
Ûæ:For the Doctor Who character, see Compassion (Doctor Who). ...
// General Morality, in the strictest sense of the word, deals with that which is regarded as right or wrong. ...
To meet Wikipedias quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. ...
The mens rea is the Latin term for guilty mind used in the criminal law. ...
A conclusive presumption (also known as an irrebuttable presumption) in English law is an presumption of law that cannot that cannot be rebutted by evidence and must be taken to be the case whatever the evidence to the contrary. ...
Utilitarianism is a suggested theoretical framework for morality, law and politics, based on quantitative maximisation of some definition of utility for society or humanity. ...
Deterrence is the method manipulating a persons action by negative motivational influences. ...
This theory of punishment is based on the notion that punishment is to be inflicted on a offender so as to reform him, or rehabilitate him so as to make his re-integration into society easier. ...
In states where the consequence of satisfying the Rules was indefinite detention, insanity was rarely invoked when the accused was charged with a relatively minor offence. It was better to plead to the charge and receive a determinate prison sentence. Hence, insanity was mainly used in murder cases where the threat of capital punishment offered a genuine incentive to plead insanity as an alternative to death. The fact that murder no longer carries a capital sentence in the majority of countries may remove the incentive to plead it, assuming no change in the dispositional powers of the court after a successful insanity defence. // 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. ...
A practical issue is whether the fact that an accused is labouring under a "mental disability” should be a ‘’necessary’’ but ‘’not sufficient’’ condition for negating responsibility i.e. whether the test should also require an incapacity to understand what is being done, to know that what one is doing is wrong, or to control an impulse to do something and so demonstrate a causal link between the disability and the potentially criminal acts and omissions. For example, the Irish insanity defence comprises the M'Naghten Rules and a control test which asks whether the accused was debarred from refraining from committing the act because of a defect of reason due to mental illness (see Doyle v Wicklow County Council (1974) 55 IR 71). But the Butler Committee in England recommended that proof of severe mental disorder should be sufficient to negate responsibility, in effect creating an irrebuttable presumption of irresponsibility arising from proof of a severe mental disorder. This has been criticised as it assumes a lack of criminal responsibility simply because there is evidence of some sort of mental dysfunctioning, rather than establishing a standard of criminal responsibility. The law should be geared to culpability not mere psychiatric diagnosis. In the criminal law, an omission or failure to act will constitute an actus reus (Latin for guilty act) and give rise to liability only when the law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that duty. ...
A conclusive presumption (also known as an irrebuttable presumption) in English law is an presumption of law that cannot that cannot be rebutted by evidence and must be taken to be the case whatever the evidence to the contrary. ...
Culpability (Blameworthiness) is the state of deserving to be blamed for a crime or offence. ...
- … the jurors ought to be told in all cases that every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction;
English law is a formal term of art that describes the law for the time being in force in England and Wales. ...
Burden of proof This is a rebuttable presumption and the burden of proof is on the party wishing to rebut. If a jury thinks it is more likely than not that the defendant is insane within the meaning of the Rules, he or she is entitled to a verdict in his or her favour. The common law rule, based on Lord Denning's judgement in Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland (1963) AC 386, is that wherever the defendant makes an issue of his or her state of mind during a trial, the prosecution can adduce evidence of his insanity. In R v Clarke (1972) 1 All E R 219 a woman charged with a minor s1 theft claimed she had no mens rea because she had absent-mindedly walked out of the shop without paying. When the prosecution began to adduce evidence under the Rules, she changed her plea to guilty. On appeal, the conviction was quashed and the general rule of practice introduced to limit the prosecution's ability to introduce the Rules to cases in which the defect of reason was substantial. In law, a rebuttable presumption is an assumption that is made that will stand as a fact unless someone comes forward to contest it and prove otherwise. ...
Thief redirects to here. ...
The mens rea is the Latin term for guilty mind used in the criminal law. ...
The test - and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of 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.
Given that the test examines the accused's knowledge and understanding, the focus is on mens rea issues. In DPP v Harper (1997) it was held that insanity is not generally a defence to strict liability offences. In this instance, the accused was driving with excess alcohol. By definition, the accused is sufficiently aware of the nature of the activity to commit the actus reus of driving and presumably knows that driving while drunk is legally wrong. Any other feature of the accused's knowledge is irrelevant. Strict liability is a legal doctrine in tort law that makes a person responsible for the damages caused by their actions regardless of culpability (fault) or mens rea. ...
At the time The focus of interest is the state of mind at the time the accused engages in behaviour resulting in a criminal outcome. It is irrelevant that, as a result of treatment, the accused may be entirely sane at the time the matter comes before a court.
Disease of the mind Whether a particular condition amounts to a disease of the mind within the Rules is not a medical but a legal question to be decided in accordance with the ordinary rules of interpretation. It seems that any disease, which produces a malfunctioning of the mind, is a disease of the mind, and need not be a disease of the brain. It covers any internal as opposed to external disorder, which results in violence and is likely to recur: - R v Kemp (1957) 1 QB 399: arteriosclerosis or a hardening of the arteries caused loss of control during which the defendant attacked his wife with a hammer. This was an internal condition and a disease of the mind.
- R v Sullivan (1984) AC 156 during an epileptic episode, the defendant caused grievous bodily harm: epilepsy was an internal condition and a disease of the mind, and the fact that the state was transitory was irrelevant.
- R v Quick & Paddison (1973) 3 AER 397 a diabetic committed an assault while in a state of hypoglycaemia caused by the insulin he had taken, the alcohol he had consumed and not eating. Since the immediate condition was caused by external factors (the insulin, alcohol and insufficient food), it was not caused by a disease of the mind. Automatism was not available either because the loss of control was foreseeable.
- R v Hennessy (1989) 1 WLR 287 a diabetic stole a car and drove it while suffering from a mild attack of hyperglycaemia caused by stress and a failure to take his insulin. Lane LCJ said at 294 that:
-
- In our judgment, stress, anxiety and depression can no doubt be the result of the operation of external factors, but they are not, it seems to us, in themselves separately or together external factors of the kind capable in law of causing or contributing to a state of automatism. They constitute a state of mind which is prone to recur. They lack the feature of novelty or accident, which is the basis of the distinction drawn by Lord Diplock in R v Sullivan (1984) AC 156, 172. It is contrary to the observations of Devlin J., to which we have just referred in Hill v Baxter (1958) 1 QB 277, 285. It does not, in our judgment, come within the scope of the exception of some external physical factor such as a blow on the head or the administration of an anaesthetic.
- In Bratty, Lord Denning observed obiter dicta that a crime committed while sleepwalking would appear to him to be one committed as an automaton. However, the ruling in R v Sullivan that diseases of the mind need have no permanence, led many academics to suggest that sleepwalkers might well be found to be suffering from a disease of the mind with internal causes unless there was clear evidence of an external causal factor. In R v Burgess (1991) 2 WLR 1206 the Court of Appeal ruled that the defendant who wounded a woman by hitting her with a video recorder while sleepwalking, was insane under the M'Naghten Rules. Lord Lane said, "We accept that sleep is a normal condition, but the evidence in the instant case indicates that sleepwalking, and particularly violence in sleep, is not normal."
- More generally, see automatism (case law).
// Introduction Arteriosclerosis means the hardening of the arteries in Greek. ...
Epilepsy in animals and List of people believed to have epilepsy cover topics complementary to this article, which deals with epilepsy in the general human population. ...
Grievous bodily harm or GBH is a type of assault resulting in, for example, broken bones or cuts to the skin. ...
This article is about the disease that features high blood sugar. ...
Hypoglycemia is a medical term referring to a pathologic state produced and usually defined by a lower than normal amount of sugar (glucose) in the blood. ...
Automatism is a disassociative state where the individual suffering from it has no control over their actions. ...
Geoffrey Dawson Lane, Baron Lane AFC PC (17 July 1918 – 22 August 2005) was a British Judge who served as Lord Chief Justice of England from 1980 to 1992. ...
Kenneth Diplock, Baron Diplock (1907-1985) was an English judge and Law Lord. ...
Alfred Thompson Denning, Baron Denning (23 January 1899–6 March 1999) was a British barrister from Hampshire who became Master of the Rolls (the senior civil judge in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales) and was generally well liked, both within the legal profession and outside it. ...
In law, the term dicta is used to refer to a judges statement of legal opinion that is not directly relevant to the case being heard. ...
In criminal law, automatism is a complex and sometimes controversial excuse to liability where physical or environmental factors negate the existence of the actus reus (Latin for guilty act // Voluntariness La Forest J. in the Canadian Supreme Court case of R v Parks (1992) 75 CCC (3d) 287, 302 asserted...
Defect of reason The disease of the mind must have given rise to a defect of reason which had one of two consequences: either (a) the defendant did not know the nature and quality of his act, or (b) he did not know his act was wrong. Thus, the requirement is that the defendant's power to reason is impaired in a substantial way. R v Clarke (1972) 1 AER 219 confirms that this must be something more than a state of confusion or absentmindedness. More interesting is whether the Rules should be invoked in cases involving battered woman syndrome. 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. ...
Nature and quality of the actions This phrase refers to the physical nature and quality of the act, rather than the moral quality. It covers the situation where the defendant does not know what he is physically doing. Kenny gives the example of a madman who cuts a woman's throat believing that he is cutting a loaf of bread.
Knowledge that the act was wrong This requirement is a reference to the law rather than the morality, The defendant must not know that he was doing something legally wrong.
Delusions The judges were asked in M'Naghten's Case if a person could be excused if he committed an offence in consequence of an insane delusion. They replied that if he labours under such partial delusion only, and is not in other respects insane, "he must be considered in the same situation as to responsibility as if the facts with respect to which the delusion exists were real". This rule requires the court to take the facts as the accused believed them to be. If the delusions do not prevent the defendant from having mens rea, there will be no defence. In R v Bell (1984) Crim. LR 685 the defendant used a van to smash through the entrance gates of a holiday camp because, "It was like a secret society in there, I wanted to do my bit against it" as instructed by God. It was held that, as the defendant had been aware of his actions, he could not have been in a state of automatism nor insane, and the fact that he believed that God had told him to do this merely provided an explanation of his motive and did not prevent him from knowing that what he was doing was wrong in the legal sense. Specific conditions may induce the delusions. The court in R v Windle (1952) accepted that folie a deux may cause a defect of reason: over a period of many years, a husband who had acted as a carer for his wife who had a mental illness came to share similar symptoms. Daniel MNaghten (Pronounced McNaughten) (1815? – 1865) was a Scottish woodsman who assassinated English civil servant Edward Drummond while suffering from paranoid delusions. ...
Folie à deux is a rare psychiatric syndrome in which a symptom of psychosis (particularly a paranoid or delusional belief) is transmitted from one individual to another. ...
The jury s1 Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 provides that a jury shall not return a special verdict that "the accused is not guilty by reason of insanity" except on the written or oral evidence of two or more registered medical practitioners of whom at least one has special experience in the field of mental disorder. This may require the jury to decide between conflicting medical evidence which they are not necessarily equipped to do, but the law goes further and allows them to disagree with the experts if there are facts or surrounding circumstances which, in the opinion of the court, justify the jury in coming to that conclusion.
Sentencing Under s3 Act 1991: - Where the sentence for the offence to which the finding relates is fixed by law (e.g. murder), the court must make a hospital order restricting discharge without limitation of time. Otherwise, if there is adequate medical evidence and the defendant has been convicted of an imprisonable offence, a hospital order requires that the defendant be admitted to and detained in a hospital for treatment for a mental disorder (see ss37-43 Mental Health Act 1983).
- In any other case the court may make:
-
- a hospital order and an order restricting discharge either for a limited or unlimited period of time;
- or in appropriate circumstances,
- a guardianship order;
- a supervision and treatment order; or
- an order for absolute discharge.
United States - Persons acting under the influence of an insane delusion are punishable if they knew at the time of committing the crime that they were acting contrary to law.
- Every man is presumed sane and to have sufficient reason to be held responsible for his crimes.
- A person under a partial delusion is to be considered as if the facts with respect to which the delusion exists were real.
- To establish a defence on the ground of insanity each element of it must be clearly proved that:
- (a) at the time of committing the act,
- (b) the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, AND (c) as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing
-
-
- OR
- (d) if he did know it, AND (e) that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
- UNLESS:
- IF (1) the accused was conscious that the act was one that he ought not to do AND (2) if the act was at the same time contrary to the law of the land,
- THEN the accused is punishable.
INSANE is a proprietary INteractive Streaming ANimation Engine developped by LucasArts. ...
A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception. ...
This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ...
References - Boland, F. (1996). "Insanity, the Irish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights". 47 ‘’Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 260.
- Butler Committee. (1975). The Butler Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders, London: HMSO, Cmnd 6244
- Ellis, J. W. (1986). "The Consequences of the Insanity Defense: Proposals to reform post-acquittal commitment laws". 35 Catholic University Law Review 961.
- Gostin, L. (1982). "Human Rights, Judicial Review and the Mentally Disordered Offender". (1982) Crim. LR 779.
- The Law Reform Commission of Western Australia. The Criminal Process and Persons Suffering from Mental Disorder, Project No. 69, August 1991. [2]
See also |
Feeds |
Contact