DEFENCE OF INSANITY: LOOPHOLE FOR CRIMINALS
Defence of Insanity: Loophole for Criminals?
Overview
The Defence of Insanity is a legal doctrine that allows a person accused of a crime to avoid criminal liability if, at the time of committing the act, they were suffering from a mental disorder or defect that rendered them incapable of understanding the nature of the act or knowing that it was wrong.
This defense is often seen as a "loophole" because it can potentially let someone who committed a crime avoid punishment on the grounds of mental illness. However, it is strictly defined and rarely successful.
Legal Basis
M'Naghten Rules (1843)
The modern test for insanity in criminal law largely originates from the M'Naghten Rules, established after the case of Daniel M'Naghten.
Essentials of the M'Naghten Rules:
At the time of the crime, the accused must be suffering from a defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind.
The accused either:
Did not know the nature and quality of the act, or
Did not know that the act was wrong.
If these conditions are met, the accused can be found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Detailed Explanation
1. Defect of Reason
The accused must show that their mental faculties were impaired such that they could not reason properly at the time of the crime.
2. Disease of the Mind
This refers to any mental disorder affecting the mind, not limited to insanity in the medical sense. It can include psychosis, epilepsy, or severe mental retardation.
3. Nature and Quality of the Act
If the accused was unaware of what they were doing (for example, thought they were squeezing a lemon but actually strangling someone), the defense applies.
4. Knowing the Act was Wrong
If the accused knew what they were doing but didn’t know it was legally or morally wrong, the defense can apply.
Is it a Loophole?
Some argue it is a loophole because a person who clearly caused harm might avoid criminal punishment.
However, this defense doesn’t mean freedom; such persons are often detained in mental hospitals.
The burden of proof lies with the defendant, who must prove insanity on the balance of probabilities.
Important Case Laws
1. M'Naghten's Case (1843)
Facts: Daniel M’Naghten shot the Prime Minister’s secretary, believing he was being persecuted.
Judgment: Established the test for insanity.
Principle: A person is not criminally responsible if they did not understand the nature of their act or that it was wrong.
2. R v. Clarke (1972)
Facts: The accused suffered from depression and forgot to pay for items.
Judgment: Forgetfulness or absent-mindedness is not insanity.
Principle: The defect must be a disease of the mind, not just a temporary lapse.
3. R v. Kemp (1957)
Facts: The accused suffered arteriosclerosis causing temporary blackouts and committed violence.
Judgment: The disease of the mind includes physical diseases affecting the mind.
Principle: Insanity defense can apply to physical illnesses affecting mental functioning.
4. R v. Sullivan (1984)
Facts: The accused had epilepsy and attacked someone during a seizure.
Judgment: Epilepsy is considered a disease of the mind for the purpose of the insanity defense.
Principle: Physical or mental diseases causing impairment qualify.
5. R v. Windle (1952)
Facts: The accused killed his wife but said, “I suppose they’ll hang me for this.”
Judgment: Knowledge of wrongfulness negates insanity.
Principle: If the accused knows the act is wrong, the insanity defense fails.
Conclusion
The Defence of Insanity is a strict, narrow exception to criminal liability.
It requires proof that the accused lacked the capacity to understand or appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions due to a mental disorder.
It is not an easy loophole to exploit because courts carefully scrutinize claims and often order psychiatric evaluations.
When successful, it leads to psychiatric treatment, not freedom, balancing public safety with individual rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments