In the field of criminal law, there are a variety of conditions that will tend to negate elements of a crime (particularly the intent element), known as defenses. The label may be felicitous in jurisdictions where the accused may be assigned some burden before a tribunal. However, in many jurisdictions, the entire burden to prove a crime is on the prosecution, which also must prove the absence of these defenses, where implicated. In other words, in many jurisdictions, the absence of these so-called defenses is treated as an element of the crime. So-called defenses may provide partial or total security from punishment.
There are several types of defenses that can be used in criminal cases: Mental Disorder (Insanity) automatism, intoxication, and mistake of fact, necessity /lesser harm, the lawful capacity of office, self-defense.
When a defendant goes on trial for allegedly committing a crime, a prosecutor must establish that the defendant is guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. And for establishing that he uses various shreds of evidence, witnesses, and proofs which gradually lead to a conviction of the accused. And later in order to save his guilty client the respondent use various tactics in which these defenses are also included here, in this article, we will discuss one of the famous defense which is often used in criminal case i.e. insanity or also known as a mental disorder.
Where the respondent proves that his guilty client is not mentally stable or insane or he was not mentally stable or insane at the time of commission of a crime, at that time the accused was not at those mental strata that he can be able to judge and classify that that what he was doing is fall under the parameters of severe crime which is against ethics and morality and for which he can be punished. A defendant claiming the defense is pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI) or "guilty but insane or mentally ill" in some jurisdictions which, if successful, may result in the defendant being committed to a psychiatric facility for an indeterminate period.
Non-compos mentis (Latin) is a legal term meaning “not of sound mind.” When defendants plead not guilty by reason of insanity, they are asserting an affirmative defense—that is, they admit that they committed a criminal act, but seek to excuse their behavior by reason of mental illness that satisfies the definition of legal insanity. People who are adjudged to have been insane at the time they committed a crime are neither legally nor morally guilty.
Depending on the jurisdiction, courts use one or a combination of the following tests for legal insanity:
• The "M'Naghten Rule" - Defendant either did not understand what he or she did or failed to distinguish right from wrong, because of a "disease of mind."
• The "Irresistible Impulse" Test - As a result of mental disease, defendant was unable to control his impulses, which led to a criminal act.
• The "Durham Rule" - Regardless of clinical diagnosis, defendants "mental defect" resulted in a criminal act.
• The "Model Penal Code" Test for Legal Insanity - Because of a diagnosed mental defect, the defendant either failed to understand the criminality of his acts or was unable to act within the confines of the law.
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) describes how Indian courts have to deal with 'the act of an unsound person'. This study was undertaken with the objectives of estimating the success rate of insanity pleas in Indian High Courts and determining the factors associated with the outcome of such insanity pleas. Insanity pleas had a success rate of about 17% in Indian High Courts in the past decade.
The factors associated with the success of insanity pleas provide valuable guidance to several stakeholders who are dealing with mentally ill offenders. At the end, we would like to quote Ronald Reagan (40th President of the United States) that:
“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American percept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”
This Article is written by Priyam and Ritika Bahadur. They are currently pursuing B.A.LL.B at Shambhunath Institute of Law and both are in the second year.
0 Comments