The Irresistible Naghten Rule Of Insanity
The M'Naghten Rule is used for testing legal insanity, sometimes refereed to as the "right-wrong" test which is used by most states, Criminal defendants that are found to be legally insane cannot be convicted of charges arising from that specific mental defect or disability. Courts use one of these legal tests to determine whether a defendant truly is legally insane. (The M'Naghten Rule (n.d.).
The M'Naghten Rule focuses on determining if a criminal defendant knew he or she was committing a crime or understood right from wrong at the time it was committed. The defendant has to meet one of the two different criteria. Many courts are different, looking at whether the "wrong" in question refers to the moral or legal wrong (or both). In addition, …show more content…
some states have removed the first part of the test in which a defendant is ruled legally insane for not totally understanding what he or she has done (The M'Naghten Rule (n.d.).
The English House of Lords established this rule in the mid-19th Century, which states "Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and ... that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, and not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong" (The M'Naghten Rule (n.d.).
The following is Examples of Insanity using the M'Naghten Rule:
“A woman with severe schizophrenia is charged with assault and battery after attacking her next door neighbor with a shovel. She claims the neighbor was actually a demon who was trying to harvest her soul. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity after the court determined that she failed to understand the nature of her actions” (The M'Naghten Rule (n.d.).
Criticism of the Rule the M’Naghten rule, for legal insanity, has been challenged by lawyers, may time arguing that defendants that meet the legal definition of insanity don't always meet the medical criteria for insanity, and are sentenced to mandatory medical care anyway (The M'Naghten Rule (n.d.).
Lawyers also claim that the M.Naghten rule makes it too easy for a person with a severe mental disorder to avoid responsibility their crimes, regardless of how big a role the disorder played in the incident (The M'Naghten Rule (n.d.).
The Irresistible Impulse Test
The Irresistible Impulse Test was initially adopted by the Alabama Supreme Court in the 1887 case of Parsons v. State. The Alabama court stated that even though the defendant could tell right from wrong, he was subject to “the duress of such mental disease and he had lost the ability to choose between right and wrong” and that “his free agency was at the time destroyed,” and therefore, “the alleged crime was so connected with such mental disease, in the relation of cause and effect, as to have been the product of it solely” (Irresistible Impulse Test. (n.d.).
The court assigned accountability for the crime to the mental illness regardless of the defendant’s ability to differentiate right from wrong (Irresistible Impulse Test.(n.d.). Penal Code
The Model Penal Code recognizes four different levels of men’s rea; purpose, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. The main feature added to the Model Penal Code's system is that unless the statute specifically states otherwise, the defendant must commit all elements of the crime with a mental state of recklessness or greater. (Model Penal Code's Mens Rea.
(n.d.).
Purpose: A person acts purposefully or intentionally if he acts with the intent that his action causes a certain result. In other words, the defendant commences his action either meaning or hoping that a certain result will happen (Model Penal Code's Mens Rea. (n.d.).
Knowledge: A person acts knowingly if he is aware that his conduct will result in specific consequences. This means the person acts knowingly that his behavior will cause a specific result (Model Penal Code's Mens Rea. (n.d.).
Recklessness: A person acts recklessly if he is aware of the risk of his behavior and that specific result will occur as a result of his behavior. The risk must be substantial sufficient that his actions represent a gross departure from what a reasonable man would do (Model Penal Code's Mens Rea. (n.d.).
Negligence: A person is negligent when they should have been aware of the substantial and indefensible risk that would result from their actions. The level of risk is the same for both recklessness and negligence, but the difference between them is that with recklessness, the person must have been aware of the risk involved with their actions, but for negligence, the person was not aware of the risks but they should have known what those risks were (Model Penal Code's Mens Rea. (n.d.).
The M'Naghten Rule focuses on determining if a criminal defendant knew he or she was committing a crime or understood right from wrong at the time it was committed. The defendant has to meet one of the two different criteria. Many courts are different, looking at whether the "wrong" in question refers to the moral or legal wrong (or both). In addition, …show more content…
some states have removed the first part of the test in which a defendant is ruled legally insane for not totally understanding what he or she has done (The M'Naghten Rule (n.d.).
The English House of Lords established this rule in the mid-19th Century, which states "Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and ... that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, and not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong" (The M'Naghten Rule (n.d.).
The following is Examples of Insanity using the M'Naghten Rule:
“A woman with severe schizophrenia is charged with assault and battery after attacking her next door neighbor with a shovel. She claims the neighbor was actually a demon who was trying to harvest her soul. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity after the court determined that she failed to understand the nature of her actions” (The M'Naghten Rule (n.d.).
Criticism of the Rule the M’Naghten rule, for legal insanity, has been challenged by lawyers, may time arguing that defendants that meet the legal definition of insanity don't always meet the medical criteria for insanity, and are sentenced to mandatory medical care anyway (The M'Naghten Rule (n.d.).
Lawyers also claim that the M.Naghten rule makes it too easy for a person with a severe mental disorder to avoid responsibility their crimes, regardless of how big a role the disorder played in the incident (The M'Naghten Rule (n.d.).
The Irresistible Impulse Test
The Irresistible Impulse Test was initially adopted by the Alabama Supreme Court in the 1887 case of Parsons v. State. The Alabama court stated that even though the defendant could tell right from wrong, he was subject to “the duress of such mental disease and he had lost the ability to choose between right and wrong” and that “his free agency was at the time destroyed,” and therefore, “the alleged crime was so connected with such mental disease, in the relation of cause and effect, as to have been the product of it solely” (Irresistible Impulse Test. (n.d.).
The court assigned accountability for the crime to the mental illness regardless of the defendant’s ability to differentiate right from wrong (Irresistible Impulse Test.(n.d.). Penal Code
The Model Penal Code recognizes four different levels of men’s rea; purpose, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. The main feature added to the Model Penal Code's system is that unless the statute specifically states otherwise, the defendant must commit all elements of the crime with a mental state of recklessness or greater. (Model Penal Code's Mens Rea.
(n.d.).
Purpose: A person acts purposefully or intentionally if he acts with the intent that his action causes a certain result. In other words, the defendant commences his action either meaning or hoping that a certain result will happen (Model Penal Code's Mens Rea. (n.d.).
Knowledge: A person acts knowingly if he is aware that his conduct will result in specific consequences. This means the person acts knowingly that his behavior will cause a specific result (Model Penal Code's Mens Rea. (n.d.).
Recklessness: A person acts recklessly if he is aware of the risk of his behavior and that specific result will occur as a result of his behavior. The risk must be substantial sufficient that his actions represent a gross departure from what a reasonable man would do (Model Penal Code's Mens Rea. (n.d.).
Negligence: A person is negligent when they should have been aware of the substantial and indefensible risk that would result from their actions. The level of risk is the same for both recklessness and negligence, but the difference between them is that with recklessness, the person must have been aware of the risk involved with their actions, but for negligence, the person was not aware of the risks but they should have known what those risks were (Model Penal Code's Mens Rea. (n.d.).