NCJ Number
137634
Journal
Medical Science and the Law Volume: 31 Issue: 1 Dated: (1991) Pages: 45-54
Date Published
1991
Length
10 pages
Annotation
The question of the criminal responsibility of mentally ill offenders is essentially a legal one, based on the concept that those who are deemed not to be responsible for their actions should be safe from such sanctions as might otherwise be imposed. This article reviews the definitions of legal insanity and criminal responsibility used in Britain, Scotland, Canada, and the U.S.
Abstract
The McNaghten Rules contain the definition of criminal insanity used in England from 1843 to the present. The McNaghten Rules define defect of reason, disease of the mind, and knowledge of one's actions. However, the British Mental Health Acts gave the courts the power to make a hospital order for a mentally ill convicted offender and have essentially rendered the Rules obsolete. The concept of diminished responsibility emerged in Scotland in 1867 when the court concluded that the defendant's state of mind might amount to extenuating circumstances sufficient to allow a conviction on a lesser offense. Canada basically adheres to the McNaghten Rules, but has broadened the definition of criminal insanity. An insanity verdict in Canada results in disposal to a psychiatric hospital rather than imprisonment. In the U.S., the question of criminal responsibility is complex as it is interpreted by various Federal and State courts. While the McNaghten Rules remained the cornerstone of criminal insanity in most States, they have largely been succeeded by the American Law Institute Test, which attempted to improve on the restrictive definition of criminal insanity. 26 references