Identify four states that do not recognize an insanity defense. Identify four versions of the insanity defense. Ascertain the two elements required for the irresistible impulse insanity defense.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract Insanity defense is primarily used in criminal prosecutions. 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 a legal concept, not a clinical one medical one. This means that just suffering from a mental disorder is not sufficient to prove insanity.
It is hard to determine legal insanity, and even harder to successfully defend it in court. This article focuses on the recent Supreme Court decision on insanity defense and standards employed in Indian court.
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. It also brings the due process of law, if that person is not in a position to defend himself in the court of law, evoking the principle of natural justice.
This is recognized by the legislation of most of the civilized nations. A landmark study in the forensic psychiatry of Indian setting occurred inin which prisoners were assessed on semi-structured interview schedule reported that After excluding substance abuse, Though the Mental Health Act, [ 7 ] has clearly recommended the abolition of various offensive terminologies, unfortunately, these terminologies continue to exist in various legislations, rules, regulations, and also even recent case laws.
If any person reading this research article feels offended because of usage of such terms, researchers deeply regret. MeSH terms such as insanity defense, Mc Naughten rule, and criminal insanity were employed initially. The cross-references of major articles, and reviews, where ever relevant were further reviewed.
In order to carry out searches related to legal issues, we utilized a combination of primary and secondary data. The author found a wide scatter of published articles and case laws.
To arrive at a meaningful discussion, only relevant articles were selected for the review. Mc Naughten believed that he was persecuted by the Tories, and evidence was brought to show that he had been totally deluded on this subject for some time. Since it is drafted, no changes have been made.
However, inthere was an attempt by the Law Commission of India to revisit the Section 84 in their 42nd report, but no changes were made. For the sake of easy understanding, the Section 84 IPC can be divided into two broad categories of, major criteria medical requirement of mental illness and minor criteria loss of reasoning requirement.
Major criteria mental illness requirement mean the person must be suffering from mental illness during the commission of act. Minor criteria loss of reasoning requirement mean the person is: Incapable of knowing the nature of the act or Incapable of knowing his act is wrong or Incapable of knowing it is contrary to law.
Both major mental illness and minor loss of reasoning criteria constitute legal insanity. To be held criminally responsible, two essential elements have to be proven, beyond reasonable doubt, a the person committed the act actus reus [ 18 ] b in doing so, the person acted with his or her own free will, intentionally and for rational reasons mens rea.
Medical insanity versus legal insanity Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged crime done by a person with mental illness.Return to Transcripts main page. CNN BREAKING NEWS. Note: This page is continually updated as new transcripts become available. If you cannot find a specific segment, check back later.
The latest US cruise missile attack on the Syrian airbase is an extremely important event in so many ways that it is important to examine it in some detail.
One of the central questions in the case of accused Aurora theater shooter James Holmes involves whether his attorneys will employ the insanity defense.
The legal tactic has been used many times. Christopher Bollyn is a well-travelled writer and an investigative journalist who has done extensive research into the events of September 11, , the conflict in Middle-East and the health effects caused by exposure to depleted uranium. During this brief period the reaction to the acquittals by reason of insanity of James Hadfield () and Daniel McNaughtan () shaped the present function and administration of the insanity defense in the Anglo-American world.
The Durham insanity defense is used only in New Hampshire and has been the established insanity defense in New Hampshire since the late s. The Durham defense, also called the Durham rule or the product test, was adopted by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case of Durham v.
U.S., F.2d .