One could bring up the idea that some mentally ill defendants who were severely out of touch with reality may admit to have ‘intended’ to commit the crimes they are accused of, but being so severely disturbed that they did not fully appreciate the significance of their actions.
However, some may argue that the insanity plea is a necessary ‘loophole’ – it is prevalent that the insanity plea does serve a purpose when analysing the case studies like McNaughton and R v Sullivan, all of these defendants needed the law to recognise the incapacitating effects of severe mental illness. Point 2 – Insanity plea serves a purpose (250) However, if R v Sullivan were to be assessed in today’s law requirements, it is likely that the insanity plea would still support his claims. Consequently, some may suggest the insanity plea does not apply here since the defendant did not have a mental illness (such as schizophrenia or a delusion disorder), and therefore cannot be deemed as insane. The technicalities within the McNaughton rules suggest diseases such as epilepsy or diabetes do fall into the category of insanity if the defendant did not comprehend the extent of their actions due to their medical disease. He was charged with causing Grievous Bodily Harm, but the overall court allowed the defendant to plead insanity since the judge came to the conclusion that epilepsy is a disease of the mind and that therefore applies under the McNaughton definition, thus the correct defence is one of insanity. In the case of R v Sullivan, a psychomotor epileptic, suffered an epileptic seizure during which he kicked the victim in the head violently.
Manchester rule instanity plea trial#
Cases such as R v Sullivan include defendants who plead insanity due to medical issues, and the judges of the trial believe their case to be associated with the insanity defence. As a result, it would not be deemed fair if epileptics, diabetics and sleepwalkers could raise a defence of insanity to get away with partial acquittal, or to avoid going to jail overall and be sent to a mental hospital. The insanity defence can be raised for defendants who are not medically insane- since the ‘disease of the mind’ is a legal term, not a medical term. The Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, in particular S5, states that the court has the power to subject the defendant under a hospital/supervision order. Unlike diminished responsibility (where the charge will be lowered to manslaughter and the defendant will still be imprisoned), a successful insanity plea means that the judge has the power to order the defendant to be confined in a mental institution. If successful in their plea, the defendant will be found ‘not guilty, but insane’. M’Naghten rule has three prongs: first, there must be a mental illness present second is the inability to know the nature and the quality of the act the last prong is the knowing right from wrong. This makes it difficult for criminals to escape culpability for their crimes.Īrguably, the most important piece of legislation that arose from the M’Naghten case in 1724 were the prongs that followed through to create a criteria in order to plead insanity. Is it possible to completely fake being criminally insane in order to escape from going to jail, or to achieve partial acquittal? In order to claim insanity, one must go through and meet the criteria of countless psychiatric assessments, as well as have a history of being mentally ill. However, from another angle, law could also be seen as fluid and versatile thus, given the shifting tides of society, I would like to explore why the insanity plea cannot act as a ‘loophole’ for criminals. Law, as a system, is replete with regulation and control- there is hardly any room for exceptions or fluctuation. The insanity plea is a controversial topic – it is mainly viewed by the public as a way to reduce the responsibility of a criminal for the crimes they have committed. To what extent is claiming the insanity plea a loophole for criminals, or does it offer a lack of culpability?
0 kommentar(er)
