Insanity defense

Historically, the roots of the legal notion that mental abnormality, instability, or insanity should be considered in assessing criminal liability date back to Greece before the birth of Christ (Hall, 1992). Based in large measure upon the so-called M'Naghten Rule that was established in England and Wales in 1843, this particular defense at criminal trials has long been considered highly controversial and, in many instances, difficult to either prove or disprove (Insanity defense difficult to prove, 2005). At issue herein is a review of current law that is applicable in the United States in general and in California in particular of the use of mental illness as a defense in criminal cases. The report will summarize the controversy over this defense tactic and provide suggestions as to how the system can be improved.

a the insanity defenses are possible defenses by excuse, via which defendants may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were mentally ill or mentally incompetent at the time of their allegedly "criminal" actions. The insanity defense is still in use in the United States, while most Commonwealth countries have moved to a mental disorder defence.

The insanity defense is available in most jurisdictions that respect human rights and have a rule of law, though the extent to which it can be applied may differ widely between jurisdictions.

. . .
rot for the defendant is that if they follow the treatment plan, they will stay out of the criminal justice system," Martone said in an interview with the University Times following Bard's lecture. "If they don't follow the plan, they are brought back to jail and tried in a regular court." Allegheny County's mental health court deals with minor crimes and repeat offenders, not homicides and other serious offenses, Martone said. -- Bruce Steele X Insanity 3/16/2004 2:51 PM 1596 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW [Vol. 36:1596 1596 X. THE INSANITY DEFENSE* Since the Nineteenth century, California has followed, with slight variations,1 the M'Naghten test for insanity and criminal responsibility.2 Under the M'Naghten test, a defendant who is unable either to understand the criminal nature of the crime, or to distinguish right from wrong at the time the criminal act was committed, is not held responsible for that act.3 Over time, California courts have implemented a number of important variations on, or clarifications of, the basic M'Naghten test for insanity. These include: (1) the additional requirement of understanding and appreciating the nature of the criminal act;4 (2) the * Stephanie K. Lashbrook: J.D. Candi
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Cal Rptr, INSANITY DEFENSE, Drew Drew, REVIEW Vol, Penal Code, PENAL CODE, Cal App, People Kelly, Andrea Yates, California California, cal rptr, insanity defense, cal app, section 25, cal app 3d, app 3d, mental disease, cal 3d, penal code, m'naghten test, test insanity, insanity 3/16/2004 251, mental disease defect, cal penal code, penal code ¦,
Approximate Word count = 10105
Approximate Pages = 40 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Insanity defense