Defence of Insanity: Loophole for Criminals | Criminal Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Understanding the Insanity Defense

For centuries, the concept of the insanity defense has been a part of legal systems worldwide. It allows individuals suffering from severe mental illness at the time of a crime to be considered not legally accountable for their actions.

Historical Background

The origins of the insanity defense trace back to ancient civilizations like Greece and Rome. Early legal treatises recognized that individuals deemed insane could not be held accountable for their actions. The "wild beast" test, developed in the 18th century, further highlighted that individuals lacking understanding similar to that of an infant or a wild beast should not be convicted.

Legal Implications

Insanity defense is not a clinical diagnosis but a legal concept. To successfully assert this defense, the defendant must prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that they were unable to comprehend the nature of their actions or distinguish right from wrong due to mental illness at the time of the crime.

Challenges and Debates

Determining legal insanity is complex and presenting a successful insanity defense in court is challenging. The McNaughten Rules, established in 1843, set a precedent for the insanity defense, emphasizing the defendant's state of mind at the time of the crime.

Current Perspectives

Internationally, the concept of legal insanity differs across jurisdictions. In India, Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code addresses the act of a person of unsound mind and outlines the parameters for the insanity defense. Recent debates in some U.S. states have led to the banning of the insanity defense, sparking discussions among legal and medical professionals globally.

Human Rights and Legal Responsibility

Ensuring that individuals are held responsible for their actions while considering their mental state is crucial. Punishing someone who lacks the capacity to understand their actions violates basic human rights and due process.

Historical Perspective of Insanity Defence in India

• Insanity defence, though a relatively recent legal concept spanning three centuries, finds its roots in historical practices such as the Wild Beast test, The Insane Delusion test, and the test of capacity to distinguish between just and unjust.
• These historical tests led to the development of the Mc Naughten rule, a pivotal legal precedent that significantly influenced insanity defence laws, including Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• Section 84 of the IPC provides protection for individuals deemed unsound of mind, stating that no offense is committed if the person, due to mental unsoundness, is incapable of understanding the nature of their actions or discerning right from wrong.
• This section embodies key principles of criminal jurisprudence, emphasizing that an act is not criminal without a guilty intent and that individuals with mental illness lack free will.

Legal Insanity Tests

• The Mc Naghten Rule requires that a defendant either did not comprehend their actions or failed to distinguish right from wrong due to a mental disease.
• The Irresistible Impulse Test focuses on whether a defendant's actions were uncontrollable due to a mental disease.
• The Durham Rule suggests that regardless of clinical diagnosis, a mental defect led to the criminal act.
• The Model Penal Code Test assesses whether a diagnosed mental defect hindered the defendant's understanding of criminality or their ability to act within legal boundaries.

Various jurisdictions worldwide employ these tests to determine legal insanity, with the Mc Naghten Rule and the Model Penal Code being the most common standards. New Hampshire uniquely follows the Durham standard.

Individuals considering an insanity defence should familiarize themselves with their state's laws, specifically whether they adhere to the Mc Naghten Rule or the Model Penal Code. Seeking guidance from a criminal defence attorney well-versed in these laws is advisable.

Types of Insanity

• Temporary Insanity: This refers to a condition where an individual experiences periods of insanity intermittently or for a specific duration. Examples of temporary mental illnesses include depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders, and addictive behaviors. In legal terms, temporary insanity can lead to two possible outcomes in defense: 'not guilty by reason of insanity' or 'guilty but cannot be tried due to insanity'.
• Permanent Insanity: Permanent insanity denotes a state where a person consistently suffers from a mental illness. This can be established through historical records and events that demonstrate the individual's ongoing incapacity to comprehend the seriousness of any situation.

Positive Aspects of Insanity Defence

• Creates an immediate presumption of guilt: When employing the insanity defence, the accused admits to committing the crime but asserts a lack of awareness regarding their actions. They are unable to distinguish between right and wrong. In such cases, the mental condition of the accused can either support or oppose the defence of insanity.
• Exempts from the death penalty: An individual deemed insane cannot receive the death penalty. Even if they acknowledge their crime, their inability to comprehend the severity of their actions precludes them from facing capital punishment. Instead, a milder sentence may be imposed.
• Potential for no imprisonment or acquittal: In certain scenarios where the accused's mental state is substantiated in court, they may neither face penalties nor be acquitted. The outcome hinges on the mental state they exhibit.

Negative Aspects of Insanity Defence

• Insanity defence is not universally accepted by all courts: Not all jurisdictions recognize the insanity defence. In some places, this defence has been abolished. Cases seeking to use the insanity defence may need to be transferred to jurisdictions where this plea is still valid.
• Increased trial costs may result from employing the insanity defence: Utilizing the insanity defence can significantly raise trial costs. Both the defence and prosecution may hire specialists to support their respective arguments, leading to substantial financial expenses. However, successful pleas of insanity are relatively rare.
• Proving insanity can pose significant challenges: Demonstrating insanity as a defence is a formidable task for the accused. It often requires expert evaluation to establish the mental condition of the individual. Even with expert testimony, the ultimate decision lies with the judges, who may accept or reject the insanity defence, offering no guarantee of relief or recourse.
• There is a risk of the insanity defence being misused: There is a possibility that individuals may misuse the insanity defence to avoid conviction or punishment. Determining the mental state of a person at a specific time can be highly complex. Ultimately, the judgment relies on the interpretation of the judge, making it a subjective decision.

Case Laws on Insanity Defence

• Overview of Insanity Defence
  • Tendency of defendants misusing insanity defence to manipulate outcomes.
  • Noteworthy trials capturing public attention due to the peculiarity of crimes involved.
• Ted Bundy Case
  • Description of Ted Bundy as an intelligent individual with a dark history of serial killings.
  • Insanity plea during trial for murder of Kimberly Leach.
  • Failure of insanity defence leading to Bundy's execution in 1989.
• CD Case
  • CD's act of stabbing her husband and son due to delusional beliefs.
  • Competency evaluation, schizophrenia diagnosis, and treatment details.
  • Legal outcome of being found not guilty by reason of insanity in 1976.
  • Release to outpatient treatment and ongoing psychiatric care.

This summarized information provides an overview of the insanity defence in legal cases, highlighting specific instances like the Ted Bundy and CD cases. It emphasizes the misuse of the insanity defence, the outcomes of trials, and the treatment and legal proceedings in cases involving mental health issues.

Conclusion

The insanity defense serves as a loophole for criminals, offering them a way to escape accountability for their actions.
Here are some key points to consider:

• Popularity: It has become a commonly used strategy in contemporary times for individuals seeking to evade responsibility for their crimes.
• Difficulty in Proof: Establishing the mental state of an individual at the time of the offense is often a daunting task, making it challenging to definitively determine their mental status.
• Legal vs. Mental Insanity: The insanity defense not only revolves around mental health issues but also delves into the legal aspects of the individual's mental state.
• Complexity: Unlike other defenses, the insanity plea involves intricate considerations. It's not merely about proving whether the accused committed the crime but revolves around the accused admitting to the crime while claiming a lack of awareness of their actions.

These factors collectively contribute to making the insanity defense a convenient and modern mechanism for criminals to evade accountability for their intentional actions.

Recent data indicates that individuals with mental disabilities who have committed crimes are more prone to engaging in criminal behavior, including violent offenses, post-release, compared to the general population.

In terms of societal protection, individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity are not necessarily less of a threat to public safety than their counterparts who are deemed sane. This raises questions about treating them differently in the criminal justice system.

If the primary aim of incarceration is punishment or retribution, the harm caused by an insane defendant is no less significant than that caused by a sane individual acting under emotional distress or negligence. Some argue for the abolition of the insanity defense to deter criminal behavior.

Individuals who are released under the insanity defense and are required to take psychotropic medication to reduce their potential for violence may find motivation to adhere to their treatment, fearing the prospect of incarceration if they fail to comply.

Active participation in psychotherapy could be encouraged if deemed necessary. Moreover, the potential rewards for feigning insanity in hopes of a quick release would be diminished if the insanity defense were to be significantly restricted.