This legal standard states that a person can be deemed insane, if, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant was suffering from a defect in reason that caused them to not know the nature of their act and whether or not the act was wrong. One of the most prominent methods is the M’Naghten Rule. The Irresistible Impulse Test advocates that an individual is not guilty if the person “did not possess a will sufficient to restrain the impulse that may have arisen from the diseased mind.” Although the Irresistible Impulse Test is rarely used today, there are various methods that many states have adopted into their legal system. This method determines whether or not an individual is unable to control their impulses due to mental illness, which may result in them committing a criminal act. One example is the Irresistible Impulse Test. Many of these methods continue to be used today, while some have been completely disbanded. Throughout the evolution of the insanity defense, various methods have been adopted and repudiated. In the 1800’s, the insanity defense was made concrete in Britain’s legal system, in the 1950’s the insanity defense became more prominent after veterans were facing severe psychological issues from WWII, and various versions of the insanity defense were introduced and then abandoned throughout the twentieth century. Since the development of the Wild Beast Test, the insanity defense has gone through multiple changes. The wild beast test is associated with the insanity defense because both concepts discuss the lack of culpability that an individual has for committing a crime when their mental and emotional state is being impaired by mental illness. Later in 1724, the British courts developed something called the “wild beast test,” where a defendant could not be convicted of criminal charges if they understood the crime no better than “an infant, a brute, or a wild beast.” The wild beast test led multiple judges to instruct the jury that they must acquit individuals by reason of insanity. In 1580, insanity was utilized as a criminal defense by an English legal treatise stating that, “if a madman or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy” murders someone then they cannot be held responsible for the killing. The first known mention of the insanity defense was in England in both the 15s. Ultimately, the insanity defense provides individuals with a way to plead “not guilty” to criminal actions and provides acknowledgement of the harrowing effects of mental illness. Throughout the progression of the insanity defense, the legal system has struggled to deal with various problems within the structure and usage of the insanity defense such as with the way it is used, the way in which mental disorder can be defined, whether or not it is too lenient, and what evidence or testimony can be included. However, the insanity defense has both positive and negative components to it. Although the insanity defense, if successful, usually gets individuals acquitted of criminal charges, and prevents them from facing imprisonment, individuals who are found “not guilty by reason of insanity” usually face other implications such as court ordered treatment. The insanity defense was developed to help individuals who committed criminal acts in which they are morally blameless for, because of factors outside their control (mental illness). In legal language, the term insanity can be associated with non-responsibility because of the drastic effects that mental diseases can have on the mental, emotional, and behavioral conditions of an individual. Individuals who are identified to be insane at the time they committed their crime can use the insanity defense to prove that they are not guilty by reason of insanity. In general terms, the insanity defense is utilized when a person is accused of a crime, but is not responsible due to mental illness or mental defect. Since the 1800’s, the insanity defense has been the subject of widespread controversy and dispute.
0 kommentar(er)
