NCJ Number
168331
Journal
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice Volume: 13 Issue: 3 Dated: (August 1997) Pages: 224-235
Date Published
1997
Length
12 pages
Annotation
This article traces and critically analyzes the various tests and indexes of insanity used from earliest times to the present.
Abstract
One of the earliest definitions of insanity in England was the "wild beast" test, formulated in the 13th century by a judge in King Edward's court. Under this test, a criminal defendant was found to be insane upon a showing that his/her mental abilities were no greater than that of a brute, wild beast, or lunatic. The landmark insanity case originated in England in 1843, when Daniel McNaghten attempted to assassinate Prime Minister Robert Peel but killed his secretary by mistake. The McNaghten rule derived from this case defined insanity as not knowing the difference between right and wrong; it dealt only with cognitive or intellectual impairments of personality. Several jurisdictions in the United States supplemented the McNaghten rule with the "irresistible impulse" test of insanity. In 1954 the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found the McNaghten rule to be obsolete and established a new, broader test of insanity in Durham v. United States. Under the Durham rule, "an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect." The Durham rule was abandoned in United States v. Brawner (1972), when the court adopted the definition of insanity recommended by the American Law Institute in its Model Penal Code. It states that "a person is not responsible if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law." This article also discusses the Insanity Defense Act of 1984, the disposition of "guilty but mentally ill," and arguments for and against the abolition of the insanity defense. 33 references