NCJ Number
6982
Journal
American Criminal Law Review Volume: 10 Issue: 3 Dated: (SPRING 1972) Pages: 559-585
Date Published
1972
Length
27 pages
Annotation
ATTEMPT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE OLD BROAD INSANITY TESTS RETAIN THEIR RELEVANCE AND ARE SUPERIOR TO RECENT TECHNICAL TESTS WHICH DEPEND ON SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
Abstract
SINCE THE 12TH CENTURY THE COMMON LAW HAS RECOGNIZED MENTAL ILLNESS AS A DEFENSE TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT. THE M'NAGHTEN RULE FOR CRIMINAL INSANITY ESTABLISHED A DOUBLE TEST REQUIRING THAT A DEFENDANT EITHER DID NOT KNOW WHAT HE WAS DOING OR DID NOT KNOW THAT IT WAS WRONG. THE IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE TEST STATED THAT UNLAWFUL ACTS OFTEN ARISE FROM AN IMPULSE, A FORCE FROM WITHIN, THAT COULD BECOME STRONG ENOUGH TO OVERCOME DEFENDANT'S COGNITIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LEGAL OR MORAL WRONGFULNESS OF AN ACT. THE DURHAM RULE STATED THAT AN ACCUSED WAS NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE IF HIS UNLAWFUL ACT WAS THE PRODUCT OF A MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT. IN THE U.S. V CURRENS IT WAS HELD THAT THE JURY MUST BE SATISFIED THAT AT THE TIME OF THE COMMITTING OF THE PROHIBITED ACT THE DEFENDANT, AS A RESULT OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, LACKED SUBSTANTIAL CAPACITY TO CONFORM HIS CONDUCT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW WHICH HE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE VIOLATED. AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED