• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Explain the rules governing insanity as a defence in criminal law and discuss whether the law is in a satisfactory condition.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Explain the rules governing insanity as a defence in criminal law and discuss whether the law is in a satisfactory condition. The law of insanity in England is contained in the M'Naghten Rules, the result of the deliberations of the judges of the House of Lords in 1843. Media and public outcry at the acquittal of Daniel M'Naghten led to the creation of the Rules as an attempt to clarify the defence. The Rules have been treated as authoritative of the law ever since. The 'general part' of the Rules is as follows: The jurors ought to he told in all cases that every man is presumed to he sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; To establish a defence on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was suffering such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, ...read more.

Middle

Therefore, the true defence was sane automatism entitling him to an acquittal. The law draws a distinction between two causes of automatism: Automatism caused by a "disease of the mind" (insane automatism). Here the M'Naghten Rules apply, and the verdict should be one of not guilty by reason of insanity. Automatism not caused by a "disease of the mind' (sane automatism). Here the verdict is an acquittal - unless D's condition was self-inflicted, e.g. by drink or drugs, as in Lipman (1970). The question of whether D's condition is sane or insane automatism is one of law for the judge (Bratty 1963). Judges base their decision on medical evidence. However, because disease of the mind is a legal concept, judges will also take account of policy. There have been two distinct approaches: The continuing danger theory, which says that any condition likely to present a recurring danger to the public should be treated as insanity and the external cause theory, which says that conditions stemming from the psychological or emotional makeup of the accused, rather than from some external factor, should lead to a finding of insanity. ...read more.

Conclusion

The over-reliance on the external factor test produces bizarre abnormalities (Quick and Hennessy). It means that diabetics (sometimes), epileptics and sleepwalkers are legally, but not medically, insane. This is a huge contradiction and does not follow what is now understood in our advanced medical world. The rules currently do not distinguish between defendants who represent a public danger and those who do not. Illnesses such as diabetes and epilepsy can be controlled by medication such that sufferers are less likely to have temporary aberrations of mental capacity, but the law does not recognise this. The emphasis on legality in deciding whether D knew his acts were 'wrong' is inappropriate and too narrow as there is no way to define 'wrong' as it changes in all situations. In summary the rules governing insanity as a defence in criminal law are not in a satisfactory condition as they have not changed since 1843, yet medical science and opinions have developed and allowed greater understanding of mental defects. This wide gulf of knowledge between the law and medical science has led to unsatisfactory rulings such as in Quick and Hennessy. Kate Allen ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Criminal Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Criminal Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    English law does not normally impose liability for an omission or failure to act ...

    4 star(s)

    with her aunt, who was suddenly taken ill with gangrene in her leg and became unable either to feed herself or to call for help. D did not give her any food, nor did she call for medical help, even though she remained in the house and continued to eat her aunt's food.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    How effective was the defence of intoxication?

    3 star(s)

    when D smoked cannabis and drank a can of beer to which a stronger drug had been added without his knowledge. Even if D's intoxication is involuntary, he will not be able to use it as a defence if he is still able to commit the offence.

  1. List and explain the six most important cases for the law on insanity, explaining ...

    the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.? The rules must be satisfied for a defence of insanity to be used. These words were originally only persuasive precedent; however through the application of the rules by

  2. The History and Main Features of Criminal Law in the USA.

    This constitutional right implies that all persons will be treated with substantially equality. American ideas about the rights of the accused can be traced to the great English documents of liberty, such as the Magna Carta in 1215, and the English Bill of Rights 1689.

  1. Critically discuss the Labour Governments record of crime control since coming to power in ...

    The BCS is useful in relation to the Criminal Statistics by not only acting as a supplement by helping to remedy some of the gaps in official statistics, but also in providing a useful check as either a confirmation or modification of views derived from the Criminal Statistics.

  2. Explain what is meant by the term causation in criminal law and assess how ...

    If the actions of a third party may have been predictable this leads to problems.

  1. How Satisfactory Is The Current Law On The Deception Offences?

    The decision in this case is more justifiable than DPP vs. Ray. The deception must be the operative cause of the obtaining of property, and this is a question of fact for the jury to decide, requiring proof that the victim would not have acted in the same way had he or she known the truth.

  2. Sources of the English Legal System and the Relationship between Legislation and Judicial ...

    They are related in various ways. Firstly, they are related through separation of powers that is the division of powers between the legislative, executive and the judiciary this to prevent the concentration of power by one body. The legislature make laws while the judiciary interprets the legislation so as to develop judge-made law.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work