David M’Naughten Essay Example for Free

David M’Naughten Essay David M’Naughten hails from Scotland. He earn his living by being a wood cutter. He hardly can make both ends meet and develop hatred to the Prime Minister of Great Britain in the year 1843. To M’Naughten, the Prime Minister was the cause of his personal and financial sufferings due to the failure of the former to run the British government well. In an attempt to get even with the Prime Minister, M’Naughten attempted to kill the leader. M’Naughten was not successful because his ploy was thwarted by the secretary of the Prime Minister and instead killed the secretary and afterwards attempted to murder the Prime Minister. During the trial, nine witnesses testified that M’Naughten was an insane and the jury acquitted him, finding him â€Å" not guilty by reason of insanity † ( pbs. org. n. d. The Right/Wrong M’Naughten Test†. Paragraph 1) Reporter Bill Mears of CNN Washington in 2006 reported â€Å"There was little doubt that Eric Clark, then 17, shot and killed a police officer six years ago in Flagstaff, Arizona. And prosecutors and defense attorneys agreed that the killer had some degree of mental illness he was a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic who believed he was being constantly watched by aliens from outer space†. â€Å"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 guilty of first degree murder three years after the fatal shooting. Eric defense lawyers entered a plea of not guilty due to insanity. It took three years of deliberation by Arizona court whether Erick will be jailed or sent to mental rehabilitation center while serving the sentence. The court Arizona court ruled Eric to languish in jail for life. Based from the two court decisions just mentioned, it appears that there is sort of disagreement among the different U. S. legal courts as to the legal definition of insanity and its acceptance as legal defense in court. This essay will trace the development of insanity as legal defense from its origin up to what it is in today’s legal battle. Evolution of insanity defense As early as 1581, insanity defense has been well considered in Anglo-American law and a legal treatise was enacted saying that â€Å"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 any understanding will â€Å" ( pbs. org. n. d. â€Å"A Brief History of Insanity Defense†, paragraph 3 ). There was no available record of court proceeding from the date of treatise enactment up to 17th century. Three hundred years later, the British court elaborated the treatise and gave rise to the â€Å"wild beast test† ( 4th paragraph ) which emphasized that â€Å"If a defendant was so bereft of sanity that he understood the ramifications of his behavior no more 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, then the defendant is not liable for the crime committed. The codification of this British â€Å" wild beast test† was put at stake in 1843, in the case of David M’Naughten as outlined in our introduction. Queen Victoria was not impressed with the decision of the court and requested a review of the case with a panel of judges. The resulting decision was â€Å"that a defendant should not be eld responsible for his actions if he could not tell that his actions were wrong at the time he committed them â€Å" (The Right/Wrong M’Naughten 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 adopted by American courts and legislatures for more than 100 years without any modification. Up to 1998, 25 states including the District of Columbia adopted this Right/Wrong M’Naughten Test†. According to legal critics, the M’Naughten test has one major rawback. While the rule focus on the ability to distinguish right from wrong (which is cognitive in nature), it failed to consider the unstoppable desire that was the dominant feeling before and during the consummation of the crime. This resulted to modification of the M’Naughten rule by adding a provision called irresistible impulse ( â€Å"Irresistible impulse†, 1st paragraph). The added provision in effect will absolve 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 M’Naughten modification and coined another name as â€Å" policemen in the elbow test† (1st paragraph). The name clearly highlight the intense desire to consummate the crime as even if there is police authority 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 M’Naughten rule as too rigid and antiquated. In 1954, an appellate court discarded the M’Naughten and â€Å" irresistible impulse â€Å" test in favor of a more scientific and medically based insanity test. This became the basis of the Durnham â€Å" Mental Defect† 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 mental disease or mental defect. (â€Å" The rise and fall of the Durnham â€Å"Mental 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 considerations with a more neutral and scientific evidences reflective of the advances of psychiatry and psychology ( â€Å" The rise and fall of the Durnham Mental Defect† rule). Legal experts claim that the Durnham rule is vague and difficult to apply. According to the experts, the term â€Å"mental defect† is very broad and they were concerned that due to its vagueness, more and more defendants will be acquitted than before. The confusion arises over the interpretation of â€Å" mental disease or defect† clause. Will mental defect mean only psychosis or any of the minor mental disorder 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 behavioral symptoms as defense of their crimes. Also, it is not clear where the burden of proof is; that is whether it’s up for the court to determine the mental defect or the burden lies with the defendant and the psychiatrist 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 Law Institute ( A. L. I. as eplacement (pbs. org. n. d. ). The A. L. I. standard is intended to soften the M’Naughten with the â€Å"irresistible impulse† by introduction of medical and psychiatric evidence requirement. The A. L. I. standard, rule â€Å"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, â€Å"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 M’Naughten test), a certification from a psychiatrist or psychologist is needed to attest to the fact that the defendant lack â€Å" substantial capacity† ( paragraph 2, line 4 ) to understand the right f rom 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 M’Naughten version regardless of the irresistible impulse clause. It is also provided in the A. L. I. standard, the provision for due process and equal protection 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 dangerousness potential to society periodically. If found during the evaluation that further confinement is no longer needed, then the defendant can be eleased. By early 1980’s all state legislatures except 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. John 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 Foster, 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, â€Å"After Hinckley† , 1st paragraph). 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 justice 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 legislation called â€Å" The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984† ( 3rd paragraph). The act is a stricter version of the M’Naughten 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 â€Å" irresistible impulse† was eliminated, in effect going back to the M’Naughten â€Å" right/wrong â€Å" 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 states adopted â€Å"The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 † while the three states of Montana, Utah and Idaho abolished completely the insanity defense strategy. In the year 2000, a provision to â€Å"The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 † was enacted nd 20 states instituted it. The provision is called â€Å" Guilty But Mentally Ill â€Å" or GBRI ( Chiacchia. 2006. Insanity defense, â€Å" 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 checked 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 ( â€Å" 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 higher rates of NGRI defenses tend to have lower success rates for NGRI defenses; the percentage of all defendants found NGRI is fairly 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 practically every loop hole in the American jurisprudence has been effectively ealed with the adoption of â€Å"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 M’Naughten. The M’Naughten Right/Wrong Test underwent five modifications from 17th century up to the present time. A number of celebrated 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 among 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 unification 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 M’Naughten rule with modifications centered on the burden of insanity proof on the defendant. Twenty states enacted â€Å"The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 † with provision for Guilty But Mentally Ill, shutting the loopholes.