David M’Naughten Essay Example for Free

David MNaughten EssayDavid MNaughten hails from Scotland. He earn his living by being a wood cutter. He hardly elicit make both ends meet and spring up hatred to the Prime Minister of Great Britain in the year 1843. To MNaughten, the Prime Minister was the caseful of his personal and financial sufferings due to the failure of the former to run the British government well. In an set about to get even with the Prime Minister, MNaughten attempted to kill the leader.MNaughten was non successful because his ploy was thwarted by the secretary of the Prime Minister and instead killed the secretary and afterwards attempted to move out the Prime Minister. During the trial, nine witnesses testified that MNaughten was an insane and the jury acquitted him, finding him not blameful by reason of insanity ( pbs. org. n. d. The safe/Wrong MNaughten Test. Paragraph 1) Reporter Bill Mears of CNN chapiter in 2006 reported in that respect was little doubt that Eric Clark, thusly 17, s hot and killed a police officer six years ago in Flagstaff, azimuth.And prosecutors and confession attorneys agreed that the killer had some degree of psychogenic illness he was a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic who conceived he was being constantly watched by aliens from outmost space. Teen shot and killed police officer he thought was an alien, 1st paragraph). Eric Clark believe that the police who accosted him was an alien from outer space who came here to get him, and so, Eric shot and killed him. Eric was found finable of premier degree murder three years after the fatal shooting. Eric confession lawyers entered a plea of not guilty due to insanity.It as well ask three years of deliberation by Arizona court whether Erick will be jailed or sent to noetic rehabilitation center while serving the sentence. The court Arizona court regularized Eric to languish in jail for life. Based from the two court decisions just mentioned, it appears that there is sort of variant among the different U. S. efficacious courts as to the intelligent definition of insanity and its acceptance as legal demurral in court. This essay will trace the development of insanity as legal defense from its origin up to what it is in todays legal battle.Evolution of insanity defense As early as 1581, insanity defense has been well considered in Anglo-Ameri stick out law and a legal treatise was en achievemented saying that If a madman or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his unacy do kill a man, this is no felonious act for they cannot be said to have both understanding will ( pbs. org. n. d. A Brief History of delirium Defense, paragraph 3 ). There was no available record of court proceeding from the date of treatise enactment up to 17th century. trine hundred years later, the British court elaborated the treatise and gave rise to the wild beast test ( fourth paragraph ) which emphasized that If a defendant was so bereft of sanity that he understood the ram ifications of his demeanour no more(prenominal) than in an infant, a brute, or a wild beast, he would not be eld responsible for his crimes ( 4th paragraph). In other words, if the defendant lacks sanity and cannot comprehend the outcome of what he did, as his ( defendant) mind is that of infant or a wild animal, consequently the defendant is not conjectural for the crime committed.The codification of this British wild beast test was govern at stake in 1843, in the case of David MNaughten as outlined in our introduction. Queen Victoria was not affect with the decision of the court and requested a review of the case with a panel of resolve. The essenceing decision was that a defendant should not be eld responsible for his actions if he could not tell that his actions were unconventional at the time he committed them (The Right/Wrong MNaughten Test. Paragraph 3).This was also mentioned in the research of Chiacchia ( 2001) and law. jrank org. n. d. ) This became the basis of the insanity defense in England and follow by American courts and legislatures for more than vitamin C years without any modification. Up to 1998, 25 states including the District of Columbia adopted this Right/Wrong MNaughten Test. According to legal critics, the MNaughten test has one major rawback. While the rule focus on on the ability to distinguish right from wrong (which is cognitive in nature), it failed to consider the un foreswearpable desire that was the dominant feeling before and during the consummation of the crime.This resulted to modification of the MNaughten rule by adding a furnish called irresistible impulse ( Irresistible impulse, 1st paragraph). The added provision in effect will warrant a defendant who can distinguish between right and wrong but unable to stop the crime due to his uncontrollable desire to consummate it to get even with the victim. A number of tates adopted the MNaughten modification and coined another name as policemen in the elbow test (1st paragraph).The name clearly high lightness the intense desire to consummate the crime as even if there is police license around to witness, the defendant will do it. In 1950, advances in psychiatry and psychology as a science was very noticeable. In the light of the advances, legal critics saw the MNaughten rule as too rigid and antiquated. In 1954, an appellate court discarded the MNaughten and irresistible impulse test in favor of a more scientific and medically based insanity test. This became the basis of the Durnham genial fly rule. In Durnham v. United States, The U. S.Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia ruled that a defendant is not guilty if his unlawful act was the product of psychogenic indisposition or mental defect. ( The rise and fall of the Durnham psychological Defect rule, 1st paragraph). The decision was considered as within the demand of the times and a major breakthrough in American legal system as it exemplify the replacement of moral c onsiderations with a more neutral and scientific evidences reflective of the advances of psychiatry and psychology ( The rise and fall of the Durnham Mental Defect rule). profound experts claim that the Durnham rule is vague and difficult to apply.According to the experts, the term mental defect is very considerable and they were concerned that due to its vagueness, more and more defendants will be acquitted than before. The confusion arises over the description of mental disease or defect clause. Will mental defect mean only psychosis or any of the minor mental inconvenience oneself found in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM). Critics were concerned of the possibility that defendants will use alcoholism and other ental disorder with antisocial conductal symptoms as defense of their crimes.Also, it is not clear where the burden of proof is that is whether its up for the court to control the mental defect or the burden lies with the defendant and the p sychiatrist as professional witness. Another disagreement is that the Durham test inadvertently grant too much influence to the psychiatrist and psychologist as to the result of the court trial. twenty two states rejected the Durham test in 1972 and a panel of judges considered the Model Penal Code Test of the American jurisprudence Institute ( A. L. I. as eplacement (pbs. org. n. d. ).The A. L. I. standard is think to soften the MNaughten with the irresistible impulse by introduction of medical and psychiatric evidence requirement. The A. L. I. standard, rule that a defendant will not be held criminally responsible if at the time of the behavior in question as a result of a 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 the law. (pbs. org. n. d.A Brief History of Insanity Defense, The A. L. I. Standard, 1st paragraph). In ddition to requiring the defendant to show proof that at the time of the consummation of the crime, there is absolutely no understanding as to the nature of the act ( as in MNaughten test), a certification from a psychiatrist or psychologist is needed to attest to the event that the defendant lack substantial capacity ( paragraph 2, line 4 ) to understand the right from wrong together with the irresistible impulse consideration.Under the A. L. I. tandard, the act of serial killers whose mental defect manifests only during the act of killing and shows normal mental behavior before and after he consummation of the act can lead to his/her conviction. In 1998, 22 states used the A. L. I. rule while 26 used the MNaughten reading regardless of the irresistible impulse clause. It is also provided in the A. L. I. standard, the provision for due process and equal rampart concerns for those who were acquitted by reason of insanity for automatic and indefinite confinement to assess and treat their mental disorder and check their dangero usness potential to society periodically.If found during the evaluation that further confinement is no all-night needed, then the defendant can be eleased. By early 1980s all state legislatures just for 10 has reformed their laws incorporating the provision for periodic review. In 1981, a test for stability of the A. L. I. standard ensued. sewer Hinckley, Jr. , a Washington police officer and secret service agent shot then U. S. President Ronald Reagan and his press secretary James Brady. Hinckley claimed during the trial the following that he was trying to impress the actress Jodie cherish, with whom he was infatuated.He later described the incident in a letter to The New York Times as the greatest love offering in the history of the world. At one time Miss Foster was a star and I was the insignificant fan. Now everything is changed. I am Napoleon and she is Josephine. I am Romeo and she is Juliet (pbs. org. n. d. A Brief History of Insanity Defense, After Hinckley , 1st parag raph). Hinckley was acquitted by the jury of 13 assault, murder and weapon counts and moreover, ruling him not guilty by reason of insanity.This resulted to a great American public uproar that call for thorough review of the insanity defense strategy and plugging loopholes in the nicety system that allows an obviously guilty man to escape punishment. Senator Dan Quayle claimed that the insanity efense allowed pampering of criminals by allowing them to kill without conscience. The psychiatric and legal professional group called for the modification instead of total abolition of the insanity defense resulting to lawmaking called The Insanity Defense Reform dissemble of 1984 ( 3rd paragraph).The act is a stricter version of the MNaughten rule. The Cornell University Law School in 2006 released the following information related to a more stricter version ( article 17, Insanity defense, U. S. Code Collection, 1st paragraph) (a) Affirmative Defense. It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any federal statute 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 acts.Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. (b) Burden of Proof. The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence The burden of proof now is with the defendant and not with the prosecution. The defendant in order to qualify for the insanity defense must show proof that the disorder is severe. The volitional test that excused a defendant who lacked the capacity to fight the irresistible impulse was eliminated, in effect going back to the MNaughten right/wrong standard of the 19th century.The influence of psychiatric testimony was effectively limited and more stricter procedure on hospitalization and release of those acquitted was put into effect. Thirty stat es adopted The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 while the three states of Montana, Utah and Idaho abolished whole the insanity defense strategy. In the year 2000, a provision to The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 was enacted nd 20 states instituted it. The provision is called criminal tho Mentally Ill or GBRI ( Chiacchia. 2006.Insanity defense, Guilty but mentally ill, 1st paragraph, line 2. ). Under the GBRI, the defendant can be sentenced guilty although he is legally insane. The convicted will be jailed and his mental illness will be study by the government periodically. The criticism of GBRI lies on the fact that very few jail institution can actually look at the mental state of the convicted insane. Examining the success of using the insanity defense in this modern time, Chiacchia ( 2001 ) eported ( Insanity defense statistics, 2nd paragraph) that Successful NGRI defenses are rare.While rates vary from state to state, on average less than one defendant in 100- 0. 85 percent-actually raises the insanity defense nationwide. Interestingly, states with high rates of NGRI defenses tend to have lower success rates for NGRI defenses the percentage of all defendants found NGRI is clean constant, at around 0. 26 percent It shows from the statistics that the chances of acquittal using the insanity defense is very slim, considering that lots every loop hole in the American jurisprudence has been effectively ealed with the adoption of Guilty But Mentally Ill provision.Summary and Conclusion It is now a known fact that the insanity defense dates back in 17th century in Great Britain with the acquittal of David MNaughten. The MNaughten Right/Wrong Test underwent five modifications from 17th century up to the present time. A number of noteworthy cases involving rich families and big political figures as victims in the past three centuries resulted to acquittal of the defendants in the light of the different legal interpretation of insanity defense a mong states.The acquittal of John Hinckley, Jr. who shot then U.S. President Reagan and killed his press secretary in 1981 was the strong force that caused widespread public clamor for reviewing and spinal fusion of interpretation of the insanity defense strategy. At present, all states except for three ( Montana, Utah and Idaho which scrapped the insanity defense in its entirety) enacted the MNaughten rule with modifications centered on the burden of insanity proof on the defendant. Twenty states enacted The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 with provision for Guilty But Mentally Ill, shutting the loopholes.