History of Standards for the Insanity Defense
"Absolute Madness"
recognized in English common law in 1600's
"Wild Beast Rule."
(1723) Not guilty by reason of insanity if "totally deprived
of reason so as to be as an infant [or a] wild beast."
R v Hadfield (1800)
Not guilty by reason of insanity if "mental defect produced
act" {anomalous liberal definition of insanity}
R v M'Naghten (1854)
"To establish a defense on grounds of insanity, it must be
clearly proven that, at the time of committing the act... the
party accused was labouring 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 ... he did not know
he was doing what was wrong."
Irresistible Impulse
Alabama (1896) legislation adopts Irresistible Impulse
rule: "mental disease" may "impair volition or
self control even when cognition is relatively unimpaired."
Result is similar to the "New Hampshire Rule":
not guilty by reason of insanity if the act was "offspring
or product of mental disease" (cf. R v Hadfield).
US v Durham (1954)
"An accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful
act was the product of a mental disease or defect." (cf.
R v Hadfield).
Homicide Act of 1957 (UK) Diminished Responsibility
1) Where a person kills, or is a party to the killing of another,
he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such
abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested
or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced
by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility
for his acts or omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.
2) On a charge or murder it shall be for the defence to prove
that the person charged is by virtue of this section not liable
to be convicted of murder.
3) A person who but for this section would be liable, whether
as principal or as accessory, to be convicted of murder shall
be liable instead to be convicted of manslaughter.
US v Brawner (1972) ALI Rule
1. A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the
time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he
lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality
of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of
law.
2. As used in this Article, the terms 'mental disease or defect'
do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal
or otherwise antisocial conduct.
Insanity Defense Reform Act (1984)
To find the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity, the defendant
must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that, at the time
of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant,
as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to
appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his/her
acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a
defense.
Guilty But Mentally Ill (c. 1985)
To find the defendant guilty but mentally ill, you must find the
defendant had a substantial disorder of thought or mood which
afflicted him/her at the time of the offense and which significantly
impaired his/her judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality,
ability to cope with the ordinary demands of life. The effect
of the mental illness, though, is such as to fall short of legal
insanity.