Essay on M’ Naghten’s Rule of Criminal Responsibility !
In M’ Naghten‘s case a political maniac who wanted to shoot Britain’s Foreign Minister Robert Peel instead killed his Private Secretary Drumond on 20th January, 1843 in daytime. The killer was declared to be mentally insane by the medical experts. The case involved two important issues before the Court.
The point raised on the one hand, was that an insane person is incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, while on the other hand, the argument that public safety demanded that this plea should not be readily accepted as a defence to shield the criminal from penal consequences needed proper attention.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
After a careful consideration their Lordships found M’ Naghten not guilty on the ground of his mental insanity. It was observed that every man is presumed to be sane and to possess sufficient degree of reason to be held responsible for his crime until the contrary is proved.
In order to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act the accused was labouring under such a degree of reason from disease of mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, as not to know what he was doing was wrong. Similar issues were raised in a subsequent decision in Durham v. United States (1954) where the accused was held not guilty for his criminal act because it was a product of his mental depravity.
The principal characteristic of insanity or mental disorder to be accepted as a defence is that the individual must be incapable of exercising any semblance of normal reasoning power and thus be unable to accept legal responsibility because he cannot appreciate the nature, quality or consequences of his act or because the act is not voluntary and has no mens rea. The want of rational understanding therefore, justifies no responsibility under the criminal law.
There is yet another view about the mentally depraved persons. In certain cases, a person is intellectually capable of distinguishing between right and wrong yet he commits criminal act because of his irresistible impulse. This proposition, however, stands completely discarded after the decision in M’ Naghten’s case.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Dr. Arnold holds that M’ Nagliten’s test of criminality is irreconcilable with the modern psychiatric insights. Modem trends in medical insight in criminological considerations accept the complexities of human nature and emotions. They regard insane persons as emotionally disturbed individuals incapable of being cured.
The practical implications of this view find support in the present criminal law which accepts the basic weakness of an individual as a valid defence against his criminal prosecution or at least a sufficient ground for mitigation of his sentence to a certain extent.
In result, it has now been possible to link up mental disease as an explanation for crime. Aggressive personalities have often to face many problems because of their conflicts and overt acts due to their mental unsoundness. Dr. E. A. Hooton carried on intensive researches on insane criminals and concluded that they were inferior to civilians in nearly all their physical standards. To quote his own words, he observed: “criminals are originally inferior. Crime is the resultant of the impact of environment upon low grade human organisms”.
It follows that the elimination of crime can be effected only by the expiration of the physically, mentally and morally unfit, or by their complete segregation in a socially aseptic environment. Dr. Hooton’s work, however, stirred up controversy and critical reaction. Sutherland criticised Hooton’s view of constitutional inferiority of criminals on the ground of insufficient statistical evidence to support his claim.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It must, however, be noted that the distinction between mental deficiency and insanity has now become clear after the researches of Jean Esquirol of France and Issac Ray of United States of America. Henry Goodard undertook intensive psychometric tests to prove that more than 50% of criminals suffered from mental deficiency and they were unable to appreciate the consequences of their behaviour or the meaning of law. Goring also supported this view. It is now well settled that mental deficiency though not directly relevant, is indirectly related to crime causation.
To avail the defence of insanity under criminal law, the accused must be unable to know the physical nature and quality of his act. Thus, where A kills В under the insane delusion that he is breaking a jar, or a mad man cuts the woman’s throat under the belief that he is cutting a loaf of bread, these are clear instances of insanity.