This created the M’Naghten rule, which held that a man is not responsible for his criminal acts, when, because of a “disease of the mind,” he does not know the “nature and quality” of his acts or does not know they are “wrong.” The courts used the M’Naghten rule for some time as the determination factor in cases where the insanity defense was their plea. Because of its broad definition and criteria, the M’Naghten rule adopted many forms over the years. Cases like Durham v. United States help the rule form the “product of mental illness” approach. The test named Durham product test created an assessment for insanity based on a substantial lack of mental capacity
In Kemp (1957), Devlin J affirmed that the law is concerned with the mind rather than the brain and this is a legal term rather than a medical term. This lead to the conviction of epileptics (Sullivan 1984), sleepwalking (Burgess 1911) and hyperglycaemia (Hennessy 1985). However, this rule had been criticised as they are not actually suffering from a mental disorder. The English Law however, group such people in the same category as criminal like serial killers or psychopaths. Secondly, the defendant must show that he do not know ‘the nature and quality of the act he was doing’.
The M'Naughten rule states that the defendant is deemed insane if he or she was incapable of knowing the nature and quality of the act that he was performing or if he or she did not know what he was doing was wrong. In the Model Penal Code test, the offender is found not guilty by reason of insanity if he or she at the time of the incident is incapable of appreciating the criminality of his conduct, or if he or she was not able to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. In both tests, comprehensive and thorough medical evaluation is needed. Medical health professionals are also required to testify as to the defendant's condition. Moreover, the more successful bids for an insanity plea generally involve persons with past history of mental illness.
This assignment will attempt to shed more light on the use of coercion in interrogations, give scenarios when this type of interrogations should be used as well as giving examples of techniques used in coerce interrogation. Relentless persuasion of a suspect as guilty without concrete evidence, coercing a suspect to confess under immense pressure and containing a suspect’s perspective by feeding them with a factual statement about a crime they did not commit is not ethical. Often criminal confessions obtained through the use of physical force are considered coerced, and in most cases, they cannot be used against the accused in a court of law. Scientists believe that police coercion may have an even more powerful impact and influence on venerable people such as juveniles, the mentally disabled and the mentally ill who admit to the crime to escape the long,
An additional step of inference is necessary in circumstantial evidence which demands a speculation on inductive instead of deductive grounds. This adduces the perception that it is less credible. For example, instead of “given X, Y must follow,” circumstantial evidence works as such – “given X, it is likely that Y will follow.” Thus, it is natural to be skeptical of the credibility of circumstantial evidence as the use of assumptions and generalizations are innately less precise and ultimately, the truth is still unknown. Therefore, the possibility that there might be another probable (and innocent) explanation for the existence of that evidence must also be contemplated upon. III.
Arguments Revolving Around This Theory 1. An interesting conversation between Gassendi and Descartes Gassendi: “There is just one point I am not clear about, namely why you did not make a simple and brief statement to the effect that you were regarding your previous knowledge as uncertain so that you could later single out what you found to be true. Why instead did you consider everything as false, which seems more like adopting a new prejudice than relinquishing an old one? This strategy made it necessary for you to convince yourself by imagining a deceiving God or some evil demon who tricks us, whereas it would surely have been sufficient to cite the darkness of the human mind or the weakness of our nature.” Descartes: “Suppose a person had a basket full of apples and, being worried that some of the apples were rotten, wanted to take out the rotten ones to prevent the rot spreading. How would he proceed?
Thus, because relationships cannot be proved true, an attempt is made to prove them false. This is called falsification. For example, instead of proving that a defendant is truly guilty of a crime, a prosecutor attempts to prove with a certain confidence level that the defendant is not innocent of the crime. For example, if there is a 95% confidence level that a defendant is not innocent, then jurors may find the defendant guilty. In other words, if hypotheses are not proved false, then they are accepted as true at a certain confidence level.
Let’s take for instance S. 25, S.26, S.27and S.29 of the Act. These primarily make a confession in custody inadmissible in court. The laws governing when confessions are valid are full of loopholes that were, in the Jessica Lal murder case, exploited by the defense. These protections of the defendant were introduced to reduce the prevalence of confessions produced by torture. But what the rule has done instead is make the standard of "relevance" too high.
According to the well known authority on law of evidence in Britain Sir John Smith, a person is incompetent if because of youth, mental illness, or any other causes is incapable of recollecting relevant matters or of understanding general questions and giving rational answers to the same or knowing that he ought to tell the truth. In the case of a prosecution witness the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the witness is competent to testify. In England and Wales more specifically, a evidence of child shall not be received unless it appears to the court that the child is capable of giving intelligible testimony'. In the
Logical fallacy means an error of reasoning. The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others and to avoid them in one’s own argument, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric. Fallacies are categorized as: formal, informal, logical and factual. Each group of fallacies contain sub-categories of the different forms of that type of fallacy.