To achieve the search objective, the authors conducted an electronic search of articles published in “PubMed” without limiting the date. MeSH terms such as insanity defense, Mc-Naughten rule, and criminal insanity were originally used. To be more inclusive, non-MeSH terms such as “not guilty of mental illness”, “guilty”, “mental illness”/”mental illness” and “criminal responsibility” were used as terminologies for searches on PubMed. References to major articles and journals, where applicable, were further reviewed. To conduct research related to legal issues, we used a combination of primary and secondary data. Online searches of various databases such as PubMed, Ebsco Host, Science Direct, ProQuest, Manupatra, Hein Online, Lexis Nexis, Jstor, Springer Link, Westlaw India and International, AIR Online and SCC Online were helpful. The author found a wide range of published articles and case law. In order to arrive at a meaningful discussion, only relevant articles were selected for review. M`Naghten`s defense against mental illness is cognitive and focuses on the conscience of the accused rather than the ability to control behavior.
Defence requires two elements. First, the accused must be mentally disabled at the time of the crime. The mental defect may be called a “defect of reason” or a “disease of the mind” depending on the jurisdiction (Iowa Code, 2010). Second, the trial judge must conclude that, because of the mental disability, the defendant did not know the nature and quality of the offence, or that the act was wrong. In 1984, Congress passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act and President Ronald Reagan signed it into law. The federal defense for mental illness now requires the defendant to prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that “at the time of committing the acts constituting the offense, the defendant was unable to discern the nature and quality or illegality of his acts by reason of serious mental illness or mental impairment” (18 U.S.C. § 17). This is generally seen as a return to the norm of “distinguishing right from wrong.” The Act also included the Defense Against Insanity Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 4241, which provides sanctions and other provisions for treating offenders who suffer or have suffered from a mental illness or disability. The general rule is that mental deficiency alone is not sufficient to uphold an acquittal on the basis of a senseless defence.
An accused is not guaranteed acquittal simply because he or she has a mental disability. Rather, the disability must also have had some effect on the mental state of the accused at the time the offence was committed. The various tests of mental insanity take into account two different types of mental disability: cognitive impairment and voluntary impairment. At the heart of cognitive impairment is the defendant`s ability to perceive reality and behave accordingly. In other words, cognitive impairment focuses on the defendant`s basic understanding of right and wrong. Deliberate impairment, on the other hand, focuses on the person`s ability to control their behavior and avoid actions they know are wrong. The M`Naghten Rules of 1843 were not a codification or definition of insanity, but the answers of a panel of judges to hypothetical questions posed by Parliament after the acquittal of Daniel M`Naghten for the murder of Edward Drummond, whom he confused with British Prime Minister Robert Peel. The rules define the defence as follows: “At the time of committing the act, the accused was working with such a lack of reason, mental illness, that she did not know the manner and quality of the act she was doing, or did not know that what she was doing was wrong.” [12] The bottom line is that the accused was unable to assess the nature of his actions at the time of the commission of the crime. A defendant does not know the nature and quality of an indictable offence if he has no idea what he is doing. This is quite rare, so most defendants who claim to be insane claim that they did not know their act was wrong. However, jurisdictions differ in the meaning of “evil”. Some jurisdictions incorrectly define it as “legally objectionable,” meaning that the defendant does not need to know that the act violates the law (State v.
Crenshaw, 2010). Others define injustice as “legally and morally reprehensible,” meaning that the defendant also does not need to know that the act is condemned by society (State v. Skaggs, 2010). Generally, the only case in which the defendant must be “morally reprehensible” is when the defendant claims that the conduct was committed at God`s command, which is called a defensive defense (State v. Worlock, 2010). Whether the standard is legally wrong or morally reprehensible, if there is evidence of a cover-up or an attempt to hide or escape, it is obvious that the defendant knew the difference between right and wrong and refuted the allegation of insanity among M`Naghten. Both important (mental illness) and minor (loss of reason) criteria are legal folly. The defence of insanity often sparks a lot of debate, especially among members of the public who may not know exactly how the courts determine whether or not a person is insane or not. It`s no surprise that “not guilty of mental illness” evokes such strong feelings. Finally, in such cases, the accused admitted to committing the crime, but was nevertheless found not guilty because he did not have the mental capacity to understand that what he was doing was wrong. In the United States, courts typically rely on a series of tests to determine whether the defendant was legally mentally ill when a crime was committed.
Here are the four main tests used to determine legal insanity. Contrary to the M`Naghten standard, “Not guilty of mental illness” cannot be invoked in Arizona. In State v. Mott, the Arizona Supreme Court stated that “Arizona does not admit evidence of the mental disorder of a defendant without insanity to deny the mens rea elements of a crime.” Mens rea simply means “guilty spirit”. Mens rea is the mental element of a crime that accompanies actus reus (guilty act).
