The first complete transcript of an insanity trial dates to 1724. Edward II, under English Common law, declared that a person was insane if their mental capacity was no more than that of a "wild beast" (in the sense of a dumb animal, rather than being frenzied). However, in colonial America a delusional Dorothy Talbye was hanged in 1638 for murdering her daughter, as at the time Massachusetts's common law made no distinction between insanity (or mental illness) and criminal behavior. The concept of defense by insanity has existed since ancient Greece and Rome. In English law, the rule of non compos mentis was most commonly used when the defendant invoked religious or magical explanations for behaviour. While the proper sphere for this determination is in a court of law, this is practically, and most frequently, made by physicians in the clinical setting. The term may be applied when a determination of competency needs to be made by a physician for purposes of obtaining informed consent for treatments and, if necessary, assigning a surrogate to make health care decisions. when one is in a confused state, intoxicated, or not of sound mind. It is the direct opposite of Compos mentis (of a sound mind).Īlthough typically used in law, this term can also be used metaphorically or figuratively e.g. Non compos mentis derives from the Latin non meaning "not", compos meaning "control" or "command", and mentis ( genitive singular of mens), meaning "of mind". Non compos mentis (Latin) is a legal term meaning "not of sound mind". A defendant claiming the defense is pleading " not guilty by reason of insanity" ( NGRI) or " guilty but insane or mentally ill" in some jurisdictions which, if successful, may result in the defendant being committed to a psychiatric facility for an indeterminate period. Some jurisdictions require the evaluation to address the defendant's ability to control their behavior at the time of the offense (the volitional limb). Similarly, mental health practitioners are restrained from making a judgment on the "ultimate issue"-whether the defendant is insane. Their testimony guides the jury, but they are not allowed to testify to the accused's criminal responsibility, as this is a matter for the jury to decide. The defense is based on evaluations by forensic mental health professionals with the appropriate test according to the jurisdiction. Mitigating factors, including things not eligible for the insanity defense such as intoxication and partial defenses such as diminished capacity and provocation, are used more frequently. In the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the United States, use of the defense is rare. It originated in the M'Naghten Rule, and has been reinterpreted and modernized through more recent cases, such as People v. Being incapable of distinguishing right from wrong is one basis for being found to be legally insane as a criminal defense. : 613–635 In the criminal laws of Australia and Canada, statutory legislation enshrines the M'Naghten Rules, with the terms defense of mental disorder, defense of mental illness or not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder employed. Legal definitions of insanity or mental disorder are varied, and include the M'Naghten Rule, the Durham rule, the 1953 British Royal Commission on Capital Punishment report, the ALI rule (American Legal Institute Model Penal Code rule), and other provisions, often relating to a lack of mens rea ("guilty mind"). : 613Įxemption from full criminal punishment on such grounds dates back to at least the Code of Hammurabi. The insanity defense is also contrasted with a finding that a defendant cannot stand trial in a criminal case because a mental disease prevents them from effectively assisting counsel, from a civil finding in trusts and estates where a will is nullified because it was made when a mental disorder prevented a testator from recognizing the natural objects of their bounty, and from involuntary civil commitment to a mental institution, when anyone is found to be gravely disabled or to be a danger to themself or to others. : 613 It is also contrasted with the justification of self defense or with the mitigation of imperfect self-defense. This is contrasted with an excuse of provocation, in which the defendant is responsible, but the responsibility is lessened due to a temporary mental state. The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to a psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act. ( March 2023) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message) You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |