The insanity defense also known as not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) is used by an accused charged with a criminal offense, in particular murder, with the aim of avoiding the legally prescribed consequences of their crimes.
In criminal law, for one to be found guilty of a crime, it must be proved that there was actus rea and mens rea. In other words the person committed the unlawful act (actus rea) and did so with malice afore thought or had reasonable knowledge that their action would result to what they are charged with (mens rea).
When one pleads insanity or NGRI they are in fact saying that although they committed the act they are not guilty because they had no malice aforethought (mens rea).
Legal Precedents on Insanity Defense in the USA
1) The M’Naghten Rule (1843)- Under this rule, one is assumed sane unless it can be proved that at the time of committing the act, they were laboring under such a defect of reason (from a disease of the mind) that they did not know the nature and quality of the act they were doing, or they did not know that what they were doing was wrong.
2) The Irresistible Impulse Rule- This view holds that an accused person might not be responsible for their acts even if they knew what they were doing was wrong if they had lost the power to choose between right and wrong. In other words, the person could not avoid doing the act in question because they were compelled beyond their will to commit the act.
3) The Durham Rule- In a 1954 US court of Appeals ruling, the insanity rule was broadened. Mr. Justice David Bazelon was of the view that the previous precedents did not allow for a sufficient application of scientific knowledge of mental illness and proposed a test that would be based on this knowledge. Under this rule, the accused is not criminally liable if his or her unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect. This rule is often referred to as the product test.
Read more: http://socyberty.com/law/the-insanity-defense-and-established-legal-precedents-for-the-defense/#ixzz1F6Zd7BrW
In criminal law, for one to be found guilty of a crime, it must be proved that there was actus rea and mens rea. In other words the person committed the unlawful act (actus rea) and did so with malice afore thought or had reasonable knowledge that their action would result to what they are charged with (mens rea).
When one pleads insanity or NGRI they are in fact saying that although they committed the act they are not guilty because they had no malice aforethought (mens rea).
Legal Precedents on Insanity Defense in the USA
1) The M’Naghten Rule (1843)- Under this rule, one is assumed sane unless it can be proved that at the time of committing the act, they were laboring under such a defect of reason (from a disease of the mind) that they did not know the nature and quality of the act they were doing, or they did not know that what they were doing was wrong.
2) The Irresistible Impulse Rule- This view holds that an accused person might not be responsible for their acts even if they knew what they were doing was wrong if they had lost the power to choose between right and wrong. In other words, the person could not avoid doing the act in question because they were compelled beyond their will to commit the act.
3) The Durham Rule- In a 1954 US court of Appeals ruling, the insanity rule was broadened. Mr. Justice David Bazelon was of the view that the previous precedents did not allow for a sufficient application of scientific knowledge of mental illness and proposed a test that would be based on this knowledge. Under this rule, the accused is not criminally liable if his or her unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect. This rule is often referred to as the product test.
Read more: http://socyberty.com/law/the-insanity-defense-and-established-legal-precedents-for-the-defense/#ixzz1F6Zd7BrW
No comments:
Post a Comment