ANALYSIS OF INSANITY OF LAW BY - RAUSHAN KUMAR
ANALYSIS OF
INSANITY OF LAW
AUTHORED BY
- RAUSHAN KUMAR
Abstract-:
In criminal law, insanity is a condition of physical disability or mental
disorder that relieves individuals of criminal responsibility for their
conduct. Insanity tests used in law are not intended to be scientific
descriptions of mental illness; rather, they are intended to identify
individuals whose incapacity is of such a magnitude and extent that criminal
responsibility should be denied on grounds of social expediency and justice.Various
scientific methods of insanity have been proposed, none of which has been
criticized. The law of criminal responsibility is based on the famous case of
daniel m’naghten, which is also prevalent in india. “to establish a defense on
the ground of insanity, it must be clearly shown that the party accused was
acting under a mental disorder, such as schizophrenia, that he did not know the
nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he was
not doing what was wrong,” the english
courts said.
A statute, a disorder of mental health, or a mental disorder that
relieves individuals of criminal responsibility for their conduct. Insanity
tests used in law are not intended to be scientific descriptions of mental
illness; rather, they are intended to identify individuals whose incapacity is
of such a magnitude and extent that criminal responsibility should be denied on
grounds of social expediency and justice. History & society: mental
illness, diminished responsibility, and criminal responsibility. Several
criminal theories of insanity have been proposed, none of which has escaped
criticism. The law of criminal responsibility is based on the famous case of
daniel m'naghten, which is also prevalent in india. “to establish a defense on
the ground of insanity, it must be clearly shown that the party accused is laboring
under a mental disorder, such as schizophrenia, that he did not know the nature
and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he was not
doing what was wrong,” the english judge said. Critics argue that they promote
an overintellectualized conception of mental illness that mirrors outmoded
conceptions of human behavior. The laws have been chastised for failing to
follow modern scientific principles, complicating the role of the therapist in
giving expert testimony. Several states in the united states have adopted a
procedure outlined by the american law institute’s model penal code, as well as
the majority of the federal courts at one time. This test provides a defense to
a criminal charge if the accused lacks “substantial capacity” to recognize the
criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of
law” at the time of the assault. It focuses on the volitional as well as the
cognitive aspects of incapacity.
The main differences between the civil law of insanity and the common-law
variant are procedural. The continental codes do not allow lay juries to rule
on responsibility, but the english-speaking jurisdictions do. In some
countries, including japan and england, a form of mental illness similar to
insanity has been identified that may be taken into account in reducing
punishment. On the grounds that responsibility requires the ability to make
basic moral distinctions and the ability to adapt behavior to the laws'
demands, insanity is deemed to be a waiver from responsibility. The insane
should not be punished because they are not morally responsible and cannot be
discouraged by the threat of criminal sanctions. Critics argue that the issue
of responsibility is less important than the issue of how to identify and treat
the disturbed individual.
Introduction-:
The responsibility theory is in keeping with our most basic assumptions
about human nature and dignity, as well as our everyday experience of guilt and
innocence, blame and punishment. Punishing a person who is not responsible for
the offence is a violation of india's fundamental human rights and fundamental
rights. It also invokes the due process of law, if the individual is not in a
position to defend himself in the court of law, invoking the principle of natural
justice. The affirmative defense of legal insanity extends to this basic
principle by exempting those criminally insecure offenders whose illness
stripped them of a rational understanding of their conduct at the time of the
offense. 1 therefore, it is generally accepted that incapacity to commit crimes
exempts the individual from punishment. The laws of most civilized nations
state this. In the recent past, however, several states in the united states
(such as montana, idaho, kansas, and utah) have banned insanity defense.
Medical, psychology, and law professionals from around the world are debating
this issue.
Types of
insanity
Insanity types there are two types of insanity: legal and medical. The
court of law is the only area of investigation for criminal insanity, which is
defended by section 84, while medical insanity is not to be taken into account
by the court. Legal insanity refers to a situation in which a person does not
comprehend the nature of the act he is doing. Although medical insanity can be
of many forms, such as an abnormal behavior due to a poor brain function, or a
deficit of intelligence, etc. A medical professional will treat this as
insanity, but the court will not consider these as a valid defense under s.84
until it meets the criteria of legal insanity.
Historical
perspective of insanity in India
For ease of comprehension, the
section 84 ipc can be broken into two main categories: the main one (medical
condition of mental illness) and the minor one (loss of reasoning requirement).
The individual must be suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the act,
according to the main criteria (mental illness requirement). The individual is
either incapable of knowing the purpose of the act, incapable of knowing his
conduct is wrong, or incapable of knowing it is in violation of statute if the
person meets the following criteria: Both the major (mental disorder) and the
minor (loss of reason) criteria are considered legal insanity. Section 84 of
the ipc clearly embodies a fundamental principle of criminal law, which is,
(a)
"actus nonfacit reum
nisi mens sit rea" (an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a
guilty intention) and
(b)
"furiosi nulla voluntas est" (a
person with a mental disorder has no free will). 16 this means that an act does
not constitute a crime unless it is done with a guilty intention called
"mens rea."
Therefore section 84 ipc places no culpability on persons with mental
illness because they have no rational thought or the necessary guilty
intention.
Supreme court
decision on insanity defense in india
India's supreme court decision on insanity defense modern criminal law is
based on the assumption that humans are morally responsible and not harm
causing agents. To be held criminally accountable, two essential conditions
must be established beyond reasonable doubt:
(a) the
individual committed the offence (actus reus)
(b) in doing
so, the individual engaged in his or her own free will, intentionally and for
rational reasons (mens rea).
Psychiatrists may be required to assist the court in determining whether
certain mental disorders impaired a person's ability to formulate the intent
necessary to make him or her legally liable.
Burden of proof
in insanity defense
Proof of insanity defense is a heavy burden under law, every man is
presumed to be fit and to have a sufficient degree of reason to justify his
conduct, unless the contrary is proved. Any individual is presumed to know the
resulting consequences of his conduct. In the same way, no one is required to
know the rules. The defense does not have to establish these facts. The
prosecution has always been the burden to prove the committing of an offense,
and that never shifts. The defense must prove the same beyond a reasonable
doubt. However, the accused would bear the burden of proving the existence of
such circumstances (section 84 ipc) for insanity defense (section 105 of the
evidence act), and the court would presume the absence thereof. The accused has
to prove by presenting evidence to the court, including expert testimony, oral
and other documentary evidence, hypotheses, assertions, admissions, or even the
prosecution testimony, that he was incapable of knowing the cause of the
offence or knowing that it was either wrong or contrary to law. The supreme court
has ruled that the critical point in time for establishing unsoundness of mind
is the moment when the crime is actually committed, and that the appellant is
responsible for proving this. This court has ruled in dahyabhai chhaganbhai
thakker versus state of gujarat that even if the accused was unable to prove
conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the
evidence presented to the court could cast a serious doubt on the accused’s
mind, including mens rea, and in that case the accused will be able to be
cleared on the grounds that the prosecution’s general burden of proof was
Though the burden is on the accused, he is not required to prove the same
beyond any reasonable doubt, but merely satisfy the preponderance of
probabilities. He bears no greater responsibility for proof than a civil
lawsuit.
Plea of
insanity
The accused bears the responsibility of proving his mental health;
therefore, if the accused’s lawyer or his family members or previous history of
insanity is revealed, an honest investigating officer has the responsibility to
perform a medical examination and present the evidence before the court; if
this is not done, the accused will be in a heightened coma and the accused will
be given the benefit of doubt. 19 therefore, the charge of insanity should be
made during the probe or during the appeal to the lower court, not during the
appeal to the higher court.
Mc Naughten
Rule
In the case of r v. daniel mc naughten, the house of lords was drafted to
defend insanity. In this case, mc naughten killed the prime minister of
england’s secretary, believing him to be the prime minister because he believes
the prime minister is responsible for all his problems. So his secretary was
killed by mistake while he attempted to murder the prime minister. Mcnaughten
showed evidence of his mental health to the judge and pleaded insanity as the
cause of his detention. His plea was accepted and he was found not guilty. This
issue was discussed in the house of lords, and a set of rules was drafted down
as the mc naughten rules, which were popularly known as the mc naughten rules,
was enacted to determine the guilt of an insane individual.
Conclusion
To sum up, the term insanity defense is a legal one, not a surgical one.
Although a psychiatrist's opinion is factored in, the final decision to accept
or reject the defense lies with the court the world over. Based on the
defendant's reasoning ability under the circumstances of the offence.
Refrence:-
(ii)
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov