The insanity defense is a concept that means that an individual suffering from a mental illness is not enough in proving legal insanity. This type of defense during criminal prosecutions is based on the assumption that the defendant during the time of the crime had a mental disease, which affected his capability to differentiate between right from wrong, thus making him not legally accountable for the particular crime. In this case, the defendant has to prove the defense of insanity by availing evidence. If he or she cannot provide proof, he or she can be found guilty but mentally ill.
The preliminary hearings are used in most states mainly to protect the innocent. In this type of hearing, the probable cause to hold the defendant for trial is determined. In the preliminary hearing, a defendant may grab the opportunity to claim to be mentally incompetent, in which he or she is ordered to undergo other assessments to evaluate whether they are competent to stand trial (Schmalleger, 2016). Incompetence to stand trial becomes an issue when the defendant is unable to help in his or her defense or incapable of understanding the proceedings because of the mental defect.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
One of the tests used in determining legal insanity is the M’Naughten test. In establishing an insanity defense, the test must prove that at the time of committing the crime, the accused was under the defect of reason due to the mental illness, such that he was incapable of understanding the quality and the nature of his act (Schmalleger, 2016). Insanity can also be assessed by the Durham rule, which states that no defendant is to be held criminally accountable for an act, which was a result of mental disease.
The irresistible impulse test is concerned with an individual's ability to control their impulses to conform to the law's requirements. On the impulse test, a defendant is not held accountable for his actions if the mental illness affected his ability to differentiate right from wrong. Therefore, the crime in question ought to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is connected to mental illness and results from it only. Thus, a defendant can be guilty but mentally ill if the crime is not solely a product of the mental disease.
Reference
Schmalleger, F. (2016). Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the 21 st Century. (14Ed.). Pearson Education Inc.
