Defense by Insanity

The Insanity Defense

The insanity defense is often widely referred to as psychotic disorder as a defense in a criminal prosecution that claims that due to a chronic or episodic disorder at the time the criminal act took place, the defeat should not be held accountable for his or her acts. Primarily, on the presumption of insanity, a convicted suspect who is proven to be legally insane at the time of a criminal offense may be found not guilty of the offense (Sifferd, Fagan & Hirstein 2017). In other cases, however, an inmate can be found guilty and sentenced to a lower punishment owing to mental illness. Depending on the jurisdiction of a court, the tests for legal insanity include the ‘M’Naghten Rule, the “Irresistible Impulse” Test, the “Durhan Rule” and the “Model Penal Code” test (Wright 2014). The M’Naghten Rule mainly concentrates on the proof whether the offender understood the magnitude of the crime or right and wrong. The rule under this test states that an individual is presumed to be sane and in order to establish a defense of the argument of insanity, it should be proved that the defendant was laboring under a defect of reasoning and not to know the quality and nature of the act at the time it took place.

The Durhan Rule

The second test used in court for insanity is Durhan Rule. The rule argues that a defendant cannot be convicted for a criminal act that took place because of mental illness or defect (Sifferd, Fagan & Hirstein 2017). Primarily, the rule does not require from a medical or clinical examination of the mental disorder or illness. Mainly, drug addicts can employ this kind of defense to evade sentence for criminal activities associated with their addiction.

References

Sifferd, K., Fagan, T., & Hirstein, W. (2017). Legal Insanity and Executive Function.

Wright, R. G. (2014). Pulling on the Thread of the Insanity Defense. Vill. L. Rev., 59, 221.