2. Insanity :
Disease of the mind or defect in personality, in which
the intelligence or the mental faculties become defective
and the emotional processes are so disturbed or
deranged that the sufferer is unable to adapt himself
with his usual and ordinary social environment and
requirements.
Insanity begins when sanity ends
3. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
Responsibility means liability of a person for his acts of
commission or omission.
Law Insane
Public attention (1843 )Daniel Mc Naughten
Edward Drummond secretary to Robert Peel at
charing cross.
14 Judges ,5 Questions McNaughten
Rule/legal test/right –wrong test.
4.
5. Mc Naughten Rule (1843)
“To establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it has to be
clearly proved that at the time of committing the act, the
party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason
from the disease of the mind, as to not know the nature and
quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it,that he
did not know he was doing what was wrong.
To plead not guilty
1) Clearly proved :insanity directly related to offence
2) Defect of reason : intellectual/cognitive faculties of the
accused were so distorted, there was no reasoning power
3) Abnormality of mind : A legal concept, not a psychiatric
concept, mind not brain.
4) Wrong: mens rea(the intent ),actus rea (the guilty act)
bot this element should be present, ability of the accused
to distinguish between right and wrong with reference to
a particular crime.
6. CRITICISM
Only cognitive/intellectual factors or reason are taken into
account.
Emotional factors, ability of individual to control impulse, loss
of self-control, hallucination, delusional belief are not taken into
account,
THE IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE TEST(New Hampshire Doctrine)
Abner Rodger stabbed and murdered a prison warden in the
prison where he was being held
Not criminally responsible, even if he know the nature and quality
of the act and know that it is wrong, if he is incapable of
restraining himself from committing the act due to mental
disease.
CRITISM
Whether the impulse was strong
Whether the offender was weak
NO ANSWER (law/psychiatry)
TEST is used in combination with “ right and wrong test”.
7. DURHAM RULE/PRODUCT TEST (1954 )
An accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful
act was the product of mental disease or defect.
It was held that the rule was broader than Mc Naughten
rule.
CRITICISM
The ambiguity of the term used I.e mental disease,
mental defect, product.
The judge has to solely rely on the psychiatrists to decide
whether the act was the product of mental defect or
disease. Hence judicial authorities has little to do while
rendering impartial and independent judgment
8.
9. CURREN’S RULE(1971)
Donald Curren Violated the motor vehicle act
An accused person will not be criminally responsible, if
at the time of committing the act, he did not have the
capacity to regulate his conduct to the requirement of
law, as a result of mental disease or defect.
It is superior to Durham rule cause it omits the
troublesome ‘product’ clause.
Vast majority of mental disease does not result in
criminal behavior
It also includes a part irresistible aspect.
10. AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE (ALI TEST,1970)
A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the
time of such criminal conduct as a result of a mental disease
or defect, he lacks substantial capacity, either to appreciate
the wrongfulness of his conduct or to adjust his conduct to
the requirement of law.
This theory combined both (Mc Naughten +Irresistible test)
taking into consideration the violation capacity and the
impairment of cognition.
Instead of knowing the difference between right and
wrong,(Mc Naughten and Durham) the defendant is now
subjected to appreciate it.
Instead of proving the act as ‘product’ of disease ,it has only
shown that the disease resulted in a loss of ‘substantial
capacity ‘to obey law.
11. INDIAN PERSPECTIVE
The law in India presume every individual to
be of sound mind
The law also presumes that there be mens rea
The burden of proving mental unsoundness
lies on the accused (Sec 105 of IEA)
Plea of insanity is taken
1)In the Bar of trial: When accuse is insane and
cannot plead
2)In the bar of conviction: The accuse was
insane when the crime was committed
3)In the bar of infliction of capital punishment
:When a condemned prisoner is insane.
12. The law followed in India in defense of insanity is an
adaption of Mc Naughten’s Rule
SEC 84 IPC
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at
the time of doing it by reason of unsoundness of mind
,is incapable of knowing the nature of the act ,or that
he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
Consideration :
1)TIME
2)DEGREE
3)UNDERSTAND
13. OTHER CONDITION AND CRIMINAL
RESPONSIBILITY
1)Delusion :mere presence does not absolve the person
from criminal responsibility May/May not be.
2)Irresistible impulse not sufficient ground
for exception from criminal liability.
3)Somnambulism: Sleepwalking Not
Responsible
4)Somnolentia (Semi-somnolence):Midway between
sleep and wakefulness Not Responsible
14. 5)Hypnotism(mesmerism): Sleep like trench state is
induced by process of suggestion held guilty.
6)Drunkenness
If Voluntarily consume with knowledge or intent to
commit crime Responsible (SEC 86
IPC)
If Any intoxicant was administered without his
knowledge or against his will Not
Responsible(Sec 85 IPC)
15. Role of medical officer in criminal case
The presiding officer generally ask the medical
officer(psychiatrist) to keep the accused under
observation and to certify whether he is mentally ill or
not
Consider the following points :
1)Any history of mental illness In family
2)Lack of Motive in commission of offence
3)Lack of premedication/preplanning
4)Absence of compliance
5)No attempt to destroy evidence, or to flee from the
sconce of crime
6)Ghastly or buzzier nature of crime
16. EMERGING TRENDS
Trend of acceptance of the development in the field of
psychiatry by law
It is also accepted mind is a unified whole, cognitive
faculties could not remain unimpaired if the will and
emotion are diseased
Even if the person knows something is wrong the
irresistible force is taken into account
17. CONCLUSION
A person may feign insanity o avoid death sentence or
prolong imprisonment ,as it will be more comfortable to
escape to a mental hospital on a verdict of not guilty by
reason of insanity
Some alleged it as a conspiracy of the officials to
release the guilty offenders into a community for a
ulterior motives
Whatever be the case the doctor have a tremendous
responsibility and hence examine every such case with
open mind
18. “When you live in the shadow of
insanity, the appearance of
another mind that thinks and
talks as yours does is something
close to a blessed event”
Robert M Pirsig(philosopher
and writer)
