Insanity defense applies to criminals who are found to have been not of the right mind when they committed a crime. When a defendant is found to have been insane, she or he committed a crime, he or she may be found not guilty. However, the insanity has to be proven beyond doubt based on what is acceptable as legally insane. In instances where the defendant is found guilty, the penalty issued is usually less severe.
The states that allow insanity plea have various legal processes are important to help determine whether a defendant did not understand what was going on during the crime. They must demonstrate that their condition made it difficult for them to differentiate right from wrong. They must also demonstrate that their actions were impulsive and uncontrollable, and there must be an expert to verify the facts. The first insanity plea ruling was in 1581 when the English legal treatise acknowledged that "If a madman or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy" murders another person, the culprit is not liable for their action.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The courts in enforcing the insanity defense use various criteria which may depend on the jurisdiction and various tests (Livings, Reed, & Wake, 2015). The first test is “M’Naghten Rule.” Here the defendant failed to distinguish right from wrong or did not understand what he/she did because they have an illness in their mind. Second, there is the “irresistible impulse” test which must satisfy that due to a mental disease, the defendant had no ability to reign over his/her impulse and thus ended up committing the criminal act. Third is the “Durham Rule” in which regardless of the clinical diagnosis, the offenders “mental defect” is the source of a criminal act. Last is the “Model Penal Code” test for legal insanity. Based on this test it is due to the mental state diagnosis that a defendant either could not understand the criminality of his actions or was incapable to act within the confines of the law.
In a nutshell, for the insanity please to be considered, the shortcoming of the defendant mental state as evidenced by relevant diagnosis should not be in doubt. In addition, the role the defendant's impaired mental state plays in the committing of the crime should also not be in doubt. If the defendant is found not guilty, he/she is acquitted. However, if they are guilty but insane, they are committed to a mental institution rather than a jail.
Reference
Livings, B., Reed, A., & Wake, N. (2015). Mental condition defences and the criminal justice system: Perspectives from law and medicine . Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
