Overview: Defence of Legal Insanity in Criminal Law
Introduction
Defence of legal insanity in criminal law is one of the most critical and controversial jurisdictions in jurisprudence. Important questions about what is guilt or not, a matter of will, and convergence of law into psychology arise as well. The major goal of criminal law is to make individuals liable for their deeds, but if a person commits an offense with the help of a mental disorder, the judicial system has the task of determining whether he should be made liable. Legal insanity is not the same thing as medical insanity; it is a legal fiction used to decide whether an accused had the necessary mental faculties to form criminal intent. This article explores the development, legal tests, and challenges of the defense of legal insanity in criminal law.
Historical Background
The defense of insanity has its roots deep in the history of law. One of the earliest references to excusing mentally ill individuals from punishment can be found in Roman law, where such individuals acting under delusions were not held criminally responsible. To be specific, the famous M'Naghten Rules formulated in English common law under the ruling in 1843 continue to influence modern legal systems. The case arises when Daniel M'Naghten killed the secretary to British Prime Minister Robert Peel as he was hallucinating, considering him to be the Prime Minister. The House of Lords derived the test for insanity, giving much importance to the fact that the accused does not know whether the act they committed is wrong or right due to any mental disorder.
Legal Tests for Insanity
Countries have found different tests that will be used to determine legal insanity, and some approaches differ in how they will consider the mental state of the accused
- The M'Naghten Rule
The M'Naghten Rule is the oldest existing test for insanity, which rules that an accused person is excused from criminal liability if at the time of the act committed they were suffering from a mental disease or defect either:
- Prevented them from knowing the nature of their act, or
- Rendered them incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong.
This rule is mainly cognitive in nature, focusing on the accused's intellectual ability to comprehend their actions rather than their emotional or volitional capacities.
2. The Irresistible Impulse Test
Recognizing the limitations of the M’Naghten Rule, some jurisdictions have adopted the Irresistible Impulse Test. This test acknowledges that some individuals, despite knowing their actions are wrong, may be unable to control their impulses due to a severe mental disorder. This test considers volitional incapacity—whether the accused had the ability to restrain themselves from committing the offence.
3. The Durham Rule (Product Test)
In Durham v. United States (214 F. 2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1954), the U.S. Court of Appeals brought into play the Product Test, stating that a defendant should not be held criminally liable if the mental disease or defect resulted in the commission of an act that was unlawful. It was thus an expansion of the rule regarding the availability of the insanity defence but was criticized for overemphasizing psychiatric testimony leading to inconsistent judgments.
4. The Model Penal Code (ALI Test)
The American Law Institute (ALI) promulgated a more detailed approach. A defendant is not criminally responsible for conduct if, as a result of a mental disease or defect, they lack substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct or to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. This test combines elements of the M'Naghten and Irresistible Impulse Tests, providing a more flexible and medically informed standard.
Legal Insanity in India
The Indian Penal Code of 1860 had a legal definition regarding the defence of insanity under Section 84.
The Indian legal system adopts the M'Naghten Rule, and it shifts the burden of proof upon the accused to establish insanity. It has always been held that mere medical insanity is not sufficient, and the accused must show that he was legally insane at the time of the commission of the offence.
Challenges in Proving Legal Insanity
- Burden of Proof
The burden of proof lies on the accused, who must establish insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a significant challenge, as proving a mental condition retrospectively requires substantial medical and psychiatric evidence.
2. Distinguishing Medical and Legal Insanity
Courts make a distinction between medical insanity, or an existing mental illness, and legal insanity, or the lack of criminal intent resulting from a mental illness. Most mentally ill persons also fail to meet legal requirements strictly for this defense.
3. Judicial Discretion
Judges are critical in evaluating psychiatric opinion, but apparently, they do not have thorough legal education in mental conditions, thus creating inconsistencies in their rulings. The courts decide on the case through conflicting medical prescriptions, which makes the issue of legal insanity not easily determinable.
4. Public Perception and Stigma
There is a general perception that the insanity defence is a loophole used by criminals to escape punishment. However, studies show that the defence is rarely successful. Public and judicial skepticism can influence verdicts, leading to harsher treatment of mentally ill defendants.
Significant Case Laws in India
- Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 627)
The court repeated what it said in the previous judgment that mere abnormality or mental illness in itself would not amount to the defence of insanity. What an accused needs to prove is that he was incapable of understanding what the act meant.
2. Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2008 INSC 998]
In this judgment, the court clearly held that unsoundness of mind has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The defense failed because no substantive evidence existed to prove that the accused did not have the cognitive capacity at the time of the crime.
3. Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat [(1964) 7 SCR 361]
This case clarified that although the prosecution must prove guilt, the accused bears the responsibility of proving insanity, but to the extent of preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
The defence of legal insanity in criminal law serves as an important safeguard for individuals who, due to severe mental illness, cannot form criminal intent. But the requirements to prove insanity are very strict and make it one of the most difficult defenses to prove. Although the M'Naghten Rule is still the basis of legal insanity in many jurisdictions, the views in forensic psychiatry have lately been shifting toward a more balanced approach that weighs medical understanding with the principles of law. In India, Section 84 IPC provides a framework for the insanity defence, but courts must ensure that mentally ill individuals receive fair trials while preventing misuse of the provision. Striking a balance between justice and compassion remains the ultimate goal of the insanity defence in criminal law.
The author affirms that this article is an entirely original work, never before submitted for publication at any journal, blog or other publication avenue. Any unintentional resemblance to previously published material is purely coincidental. This article is intended solely for academic and scholarly discussion. The author takes personal responsibility for any potential infringement of intellectual property rights belonging to any individuals, organizations, governments, or institutions.
References-
- Tapas Banerjee, Background to Indian Criminal Law (1963).
- Dixon, " A Legacy of Hedfield, M'Naghten, and Maclean," 31 A.L.J. 255 (1957).
- H.L.A. Hart, The Morality of the Criminal Law (1965).
- Modi, Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 380 (15th ed. 1965).
- The Indian Law Institute, Essays on the Indian Penal Code 76 (1962).