![]() The "M'Naghten Rule" - Defendant either did not understand what he or she did, or failed to distinguish right from wrong, because of a "disease of mind.".How Courts Test for Legal Insanityĭepending on the jurisdiction, courts use one or a combination of the following tests for legal insanity: states and other jurisdictions around the world today. The legal basis for insanity was codified into British law in the mid-19th Century with the M'Naughten Rule, which is used in a majority of U.S. British courts came up with the "wild beast" test in the 18th Century, in which defendants were not to be convicted if they understood the crime no better than "an infant, a brute, or a wild beast."īesides the fact that courts no longer use the terms "lunatic" or "wild beast," current laws allowing for the insanity defense follow a similar logic. The first known recognition of insanity as a defense to criminal charges was recorded in a 1581 English legal treatise stating that, "If a madman or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy" kills someone, they can't be held accountable. In states that allow the insanity defense, defendants must prove to the court that they didn't understand what they were doing failed to know right from wrong acted on an uncontrollable impulse or some variety of these factors.īelow you'll find basic information and legal issues related to the insanity defense, how courts test for insanity, and differences in state laws and procedures. In some cases, the defendant may be found guilty but sentenced to a less severe punishment due to a mental impairment. ![]() A criminal defendant who's found to have been legally insane when they committed a crime may be found not guilty by reason of insanity. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |