This article has been written by Pranay Dhakad from Alliance School of Law

Introduction

The legal and medical concepts of insanity have long been intertwined, yet remain distinct. The M’Naughten case, a landmark decision given by the British House of Lords in the year 1843 that laid the foundation for the legal definition of insanity in common law jurisdictions, including India, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. This article delves into the M’Naughten rules, exploring the differences between legal and medical insanity, highlighting relevant legal provisions from each jurisdiction.

The M’Naughten Rules: A Cornerstone of Legal Insanity

The M’Naughten case arose following the assassination of Edward Drummond, mistook for the then Prime Minister, by Daniel M’Naughten. The House of Lords established the “right-and-wrong” test, stating that:

A person is not criminally responsible for an act if, at the time the act was committed, he was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to 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.

This became the cornerstone of the legal insanity defense, placing the burden of proof upon the defendant to demonstrate that their mental state at the time of the offense rendered them incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The Divide b/w Legal & Medical Insanity

While the M’Naughten rules established a legal framework, they diverged from the medical definition of insanity. Medical professionals diagnose mental illness based on clinical criteria, focusing on cognitive, emotional, and behavioral symptoms. Legal insanity, on the other hand, is a narrow concept linked to a defendant’s mental capacity at the time of the offense and their ability to understand the legal implications of their actions.

Legal Provisions in Different Jurisdictions

India ~

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) adopts the M’Naughten rules in Section 84. It states that “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.”

United States ~

The US legal system generally adheres to the M’Naughten rules, with variations depending on the state. Some states, like California, have adopted the “irresistible impulse” test, where a defendant is not criminally responsible if they were unable to resist an impulse to commit the crime due to mental illness.

United Kingdom ~

The UK continues to follow the M’Naughten rules with some modifications. The Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 allows for a partial defense of diminished responsibility, reducing a murder charge to manslaughter if the defendant’s mental illness significantly impaired their ability to understand their actions or their consequences.

Beyond the M’Naughten Rules: Exploring Alternative Legal Standards

While the M’Naughten rules have been influential, they haven’t remained static. Different jurisdictions have adopted modifications and alternative legal standards to address the limitations of the “right-and-wrong” test. Here are some notable examples:

Irresistible Impulse Test:

This test, adopted by some US states, considers whether the defendant, due to mental illness, was unable to control their impulses, even if they understood the nature and wrongfulness of their actions.

Model Penal Code Test:

This test, proposed by the American Law Institute, focuses on whether the defendant’s mental condition substantially impaired their capacity to appreciate the criminality of their conduct or conform their conduct to the law.

Diminished Responsibility:

This concept, present in UK law, allows for a partial defense where a mental illness significantly impaired the defendant’s ability to understand their actions or their consequences, potentially reducing a murder charge to manslaughter.

These alternative standards offer a more nuanced approach to legal insanity, recognizing that mental illness can manifest in various ways and affect different aspects of a person’s mental state.

Criticisms and the Need for Reform:

The M’Naughten rules have faced criticism for being overly narrow and failing to account for the complexities of mental illness. Critics argue that:

• The “right-and-wrong” test is too restrictive and does not consider the full range of mental disorders.
• Reliance on expert witness testimony can be subjective and unreliable, leading to inconsistent outcomes.
• The focus on legal constructs like “criminality” may not accurately reflect the mental state of the defendant.

Further, the reform efforts aim to address these criticisms by:

• Expanding the legal definition of insanity to include a wider range of mental illnesses.
• Improving the quality and consistency of expert witness evaluations.
• Shifting the focus from legal questions to the specific impacts of the defendant’s mental illness on their actions.
• Ethical Considerations and the Role of Mental Health Professionals:
• The intersection of law and mental health raises ethical considerations, particularly for mental health professionals involved in criminal cases. They must:
• Maintain professional ethics and avoid advocacy for either the prosecution or the defense.
• Provide accurate and objective evaluations based on their expertise.
• Be aware of the potential consequences of their testimony on the defendant’s life.

The Future of Legal Insanity:

As our understanding of mental illness evolves, the legal system must adapt to ensure fairness and justice. Ongoing research, dialogue, and reform efforts are crucial to developing a more nuanced and effective approach to legal insanity that balances the principles of accountability and compassion.

Conclusion

The M’Naughten case remains a pivotal reference point in legal insanity, but it is crucial to acknowledge the distinction between legal and medical definitions. Understanding this distinction and the specific legal provisions in each jurisdiction is essential for navigating the complexities of insanity defense and ensuring justice is served.

This article also explores the complexities of legal insanity beyond the M’Naughten rules, providing for alternative standards, criticisms, reform proposals, ethical considerations, and the future of legal insanity.

References

• R v M’Naughten (1843) 8 ER 718
• The Trial of Daniel M’Naghten (1843)
• Daniel M’Naghten: The Man Who Changed the Law on Insanity (2012)
• The Insanity Defense: A Philosophical and Legal Inquiry (1984) ~ Stephen J. Morse
• The Forensic Evaluation of Mental Competency to Stand Trial (2013) ~ John Monahan and Stephen J. Cooke
• Legal Insanity: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals (2019) ~ David Cooke
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860
• The Model Penal Code: Section 2.04 – Insanity ~ American Law Institute
• Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 ~ United Kingdom
• The Irresistible Impulse Test: A Critical Analysis” (1983) ~ Michael S. Moore
• The Model Penal Code and the Insanity Defense” (1985) ~ Stephen J. Morse
• Diminished Responsibility: A Comparative Analysis” (2012) ~ Peter Hodgkinson and Richard J. Bonnie
• The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984: An Empirical Failure” (1994) ~ John Monahan and Laurens Walker
• The Myth of the Forensic Insanity Defense” (2003) ~ Richard J. Bonnie
• The Insanity Defense: A Call for Reform” (2019) ~ The American Bar Association
• Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists” (2015) ~ The American Psychological Association
• The Ethical Responsibilities of Forensic Psychiatrists” (2017) ~ The American Psychiatric Association
• The Competency to Stand Trial Evaluation: Ethical Considerations for Forensic Psychologists” (2019) ~ John Monahan and Laura I. Steinberg
• The Future of the Insanity Defense: A Research Agenda” (2015) ~ John Monahan
• Mental Health Courts: Transforming Justice for People with Mental Illness” (2016) ~ The National Center for State Courts
• The Insanity Defense: A 21st Century Perspective” (2020) ~ Michael S. Moore