The
Four Tests for Insanity
There are four different insanity tests that have
been used by U.S. Courts over the years. They are The M’Naghten Rule, the “Irresistible
Impulse” or “Control” Test, the “Product” Test, and the Model Penal Code "Substantial Capacity" Test.
Note that this is a brief description of the tests and does not address whether
any of them are flawed.
The
M’Naghten Rule:
The first of these, The M’Naghten Rule, has its
foundations in English Common law from the attempted assassination of the
British Prime Minister, Robert Peel in 1843 by Daniel M’Naghten. In M'Naghten's case, instead of
shooting the Prime Minister, M’Naghten’s shot missed Peel and hit his secretary Edward
Drummond, who died a few days later. M’Naghten was acquitted of the crime based
on insanity. Due to the importance of the victim and the intended victim, there
was a firm public outcry, and the House of Lords was required to come up answers
for the basis of their decision. These answers were amended to the original
decision and are considered to be as if they were part of that decision. The test
is as follows:
“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 the
mind, as 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.”
It is important to note that the M’Naghten rule
refuses to recognize volitional or emotional impairments, and instead recognizes
the cognitive element as the singular cause of conduct.
The
“Irresistible Impulse” or “Control” Test
In a response
to some of the criticisms on the M’Naghten rule, the state of Alabama created a
test based on “Irresistible Impulse” in the case of Parsons v. State 81 Ala.
577 (1887). In Parsons, the defendants had been convicted of the murder of
Bennett Parsons, by shooting him with a gun; one of the defendants was the wife
and the other the daughter of the deceased. The defense set up in the trial was
the plea of insanity by showing that the daughter
was an idiot, and the mother and wife a lunatic, subject to insane delusions,
and that the killing on her part was the offspring and product of those
delusions.
“[I]f a person
commit a homicide knowing it to be wrong, but do so under the influence of an
uncontrollable and irresistible impulse, arising not from natural passion, but
from an insane condition of the mind, he is not criminally responsible. “81 Ala. 591
Wrongness plays no part in this test, just whether
or not the governing power of the mind has been destroyed.
The
“Product Test”
In 1954, the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia declared that, “an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful
act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.” Durham v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 228. This case originated from the Supreme Court
of New Hampshire in State v. Pike, 49
N.H. 399 (1869), but had not been largely adopted due to the supremacy of M’Naghten.
In addition, this test had not defined “product” and thus is vague. In
addition, there was much dispute over this test because it expanded the defense
of legal insanity more so than the M’Naghten or “Irresistible Impulse Tests.”
This test was a precursor to the Model Penal Test.
Model Penal Code “Substantial Capacity” Test
Model Penal Code “Substantial Capacity” Test
Due to the substantial criticism that was made
against the above tests due to their strictness, the American Law Institute
created the “Substantial Capacity” Test in order to broaden the scope of the
insanity defense.
This test relieves the defendant of responsibility
under two circumstances:
(1) When, as a result of mental disease or defect,
the defendant lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality
[wrongfulness] of his conduct; (2) When, as a result of mental disease or
defect, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the
requirements of law.
The use of “appreciate” rather than “know” conveys a
broader sense of understanding than simple cognition. Additionally, the terms “mental
disease or defect” do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated
criminal or otherwise anti-social conduct.
Note:
The M’Naghten Rule is still primarily used today. It
seems that whenever courts start to move away from the M’Naghten Rule someone
tries to assassinate a prime minister or a president and then claim insanity. Some
states do not recognize an insanity defense.
P.S. Badly referenced and formatted I know, but I wanted to focus on getting an actual post out rather than creating a work of art.
No comments:
Post a Comment