ABSTRACT
The topic of my article is the critical review of insanity as defence under IPC. The insanity is a topic that seems to garner a lot of attention even though it is rarely used and only a few cases that invoke are actually successful. Section 84 of Indian Penal Code is the primary legislation dealing with criminal responsibility of mentally ill persons in India. Section 84 – Act of a person of unsound mind – Nothing in an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. Section 84 states that unsoundness of mind is a defence act of a person to a criminal charge on the theory that ‘one who is insane has no mind and hence cannot have the necessary mens rea to commit crime. Being deprived of
…show more content…
The idea for the law of insanity has been laid down by House of Lords in 1843, in what is popularly known as the Mc Naughten case . INTRODUCTION
In law responsibility means liability to punishment. This concept of responsibility is fundamental to our view of as a free, intentional being and is said to form the basis of criminal codes and punishment systems. A person can be liable for any acts he commit, only if he does it with his wish and free will. It is considered that motive is a must for a criminal act. A mere commission of act does not prove a person guilty. Law recognise the concept “ actus non facit reum , nisi mens sit rea “ i.e the physical act alone does not make a person guilty ; the component in the form of evil intent ( guilty mind ) is equally important. Insanity or mental abnormality is one of the general exception to criminal liability recognised by IPC. The justification for providing unsoundness of mind as a complete defence is that an insane person is incapable of forming criminal intent. Further, a mad man has no will (furiosis nulla voluntas est ) and he
Under Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-502, does Aaron Wilson, 1) suffer from a mental disease or defect at the time of the incident, and 2) know right from wrong at the time of the incident; and will therefore be found guilty except insane? A.R.S § 13-502 states “a person may be found guilty except insane if at the time of the commission of the criminal act, the person was afflicted with a mental disorder or defect of such severity that the person did not know the criminal act was wrong.” Ariz. Rev. Stat.
There is also an inclination to believe that if he had not suffered from this state, then the offence would not have been committed, specially not in the barbaric way it was done. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the accused willfully preformed the act, nor that the mens rea and the actus reus coincided while he was not in a psychotic state. (Roach, 113) Related to this finding is another element that supports the verdict of the Honorable Judge, which is the Principle of Fundamental Justice that states that no one should be “punished for morally involuntary actions.” (Roach, 82) A person who successfully raises the mental disorder defence is considered to be morally innocent of the act because they were not acting freely, in this case, free from psychotic ideations.
The insanity defence is one of the most controversial topics in the legal system, used by many criminal defendants as an excuse for their unlawful activities. In fact, the Canadian legal system has experienced this in the case of Valentine Shortis, an Irish Immigrant who was convicted of killing two men, injuring one and attempted murder on March 1, 1895. Charged with murder and sentenced to death, Valentine’s Lawyer St. Pierre argued that he suffered from insanity, such as his inability to distinguish right from wrong. There was evidence from Shortis's friends, family, and neighbours who claimed that Shortis was arrogant and mischievous person. According to Friedland, the crown (Macmaster) stated that “he did many eccentric, rash and even
In the field of criminal law there is a certain type of criminal defense that comes to the court and has a low success rate. These cases concern the mental capacity of the defendant and if they have enough mental capacity, or are sane enough, to be aware of their crime and consequences of crime. The insanity defense is extremely rare because of how difficult it is for the defense to prove to the court and jury that the defendant did not have the mental capacity to understand what they did wrong and the consequences from it. The case of Myers III v. State of Indiana is one example of criminal responsibility and mental capacity. This case has information that can be connected to the textbook with the insanity defense tests, mental competence
Dr. Mark Nolan, Senior Lecturer at ANU College of Law, says that the NGRI plea “enables defendants to avoid criminal liability and standard criminal punishment” (Nolan 8). The main disagreement with America is the focus whether if the “guilty defendant” pursues to misuse the “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” as an alternative to imprisonment or if the criminally accused was at the time of committing the crime “clinically insane” and in need psychotherapy. Therefore, during this discussion of opposing viewpoints concerning the insanity defense being misused or ethical are going to be
In refers to class discussion, as a result of the M’Nagthen case, the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 (IDRA) is only use when the defendant does not understand the nature of the crime committed. Therefore, although neurosis or personality disorders qualify as a mental disease according to the DSM-5; the law has eliminated these types of disorders from being utilized in courts as a form of defense. The law has also excluded the irresistible impulse or inabilities to comply with the rules as a means of defense in the federal
In the article, it stated, “Following nine days of testimony, the jury found Lorena Bobbitt not guilty by reason of temporary insanity” (Pershing 2). This is a prime example of unjust in the criminal court
“It was discovered that one psychiatrist, Park Dietz, had given testimony that turned out to be untrue. He had claimed that Yates got her idea to drown the children from an episode of Law and Order. It turned out that he had confused the plots of multiple episodes” (Andrea Yates, 2021). It was during this trial that Andrea Yates was found not guilty by the reason of insanity and was sent to a maximum-security state mental facility. The M'Naghten Rule, which states “all defendants are presumed to be sane unless they can prove that–at the time of committing the criminal act–the defendant’s state of mind caused them to (1) not know what they were doing when they committed said act, or (2) that they knew what they were doing, but did not know that it was wrong”
The M'Naghten Rule states that the only proof of insanity is if a person is unable to distinguish between right and wrong at the time they commit a crime. Under this law, many mental insane people are classified as sane because they show no physical prominent issues. (Capote, Conversations 129-130)The M'Naghten rule plays a giant role in the novel In Cold Blood. A doctor is put on the stand during the trial of Dick and Perry to testify regarding their mental illnesses. The novel states, " It was hopeless because though Dr.Jones agreed to elaborate, the prosecution was entitled to object -- and did, citing the fact that Kansas law allowed nothing more than a yes or no reply to that pertinent
(66). The criminal is aware that he murdered someone, yet shows no remorse. A person who is criminally insane does not understand the effects and consequences of their actions, and therefore cannot take responsibility for them. The murderer also hides his wrongdoings from the police. If he were criminally insane, he would not have to lie about his actions.
In 1989, The Supreme Court decided the Penry v. Lynaugh case. Penry, the petitioner, was convicted of rape and murder and was sentenced to death. It was found that Penry, in a competency evaluation, was mentally retarded, known today as intellectually disabled, with an IQ of 54 (Penry v. Lynaugh,1989). Despite Penry’s IQ, the jury found that Penry was competent to proceed and further sentenced him to death. Although there was also an insanity plea, the jury rejected the defense and again sentenced him to death.
Although, just because they have a mental illness, doesn't mean that's the reason they did their crime. I believe the insanity defense could have been the best outcome for the defendant, because they would have been treated for their mental
Intro: “It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane” (PHILIP K. DICK, Valis). In present day America laws have been placed that prevent people who are “insane” to be guilty of the crimes they commit. In short, insanity is the state of being seriously mentally ill relating to madness. This is presented in the book Medea written by Euripides through her point of view. In Medea, a surge of insanity purges her after she is betrayed by her husband Jason causing many cruel and harsh actions to follow from her.
For example, people try using insanity as a defense when being prosecuted in a criminal case. (Math, Kumar, and Moirangthem) It is based on the assumptions that at the time of the crime, the defendant was not suffering from severe mental illness. Therefore, they were well aware that they were committing a crime.
Madness and what it causes, an analysis on the basis of the chosen short stories written by Charlotte Gilman and Edgar Allan Poe. Madness has many faces, usually such a state of mind is far from desirable. Person with an unstable mind can cause a havoc in a pragmatic and organized world of ordinary citizens. People build society of certain cultural norms for breaching which an individual faces various consequences. Very few bother to determine if a person while breaking some set of rules is capable of answering for his or her actions or not, today 's average individual suffering from a mob mentality is more keen on finding a scapegoat rather than a just solution.