Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Insanity defense
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==History== The concept of defense by insanity has existed since [[ancient Greece]] and [[Roman Empire|Rome]]. During the Roman and Greek eras, insanity was used as a way to help provide a defense for those with mental disorders.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/the-insanity-defense-history-and-background.html#:~:text=Courts%20in%20ancient%20Rome%20and,pardon%20or%20mitigate%20a%20sentence | title=Background and History of the Insanity Defense }}</ref> However, in [[colonial America]] a [[delusion]]al [[Dorothy Talbye Trial|Dorothy Talbye]] was [[hanged]] in 1638 for murdering her daughter, as at the time [[Massachusetts]]'s [[common law]] made no distinction between [[insanity]] (or [[mental illness]]) and criminal behavior.<ref>{{cite book |author=Albert Christophe |year=1912 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=648_AAAAMAAJ&q=dorothy+talbye&pg=PA131 |title=The Romantic Story of the Puritan Fathers: And Their Founding of NewBoston |access-date=2007-11-14 }}</ref> [[Edward II of England|Edward II]], under [[English common law]], declared that a person was insane if their mental capacity was no more than that of a "wild beast" (in the sense of a dumb animal, rather than being frenzied). The first complete transcript of an insanity trial dates to 1724. It is likely that the insane, like those under 14, were spared [[trial by ordeal]]. When that was replaced by trial by jury, members were expected to find the insane guilty but then to refer the case to the king for a [[royal pardon]]. From 1500 onwards, juries could acquit the insane, and detention required a separate civil procedure.<ref name=walker>{{Cite book|author=Walker, N.|title=Crime and Insanity in England:The Historical Perspective|url=https://archive.org/details/crimeinsanityine0001unse|url-access=registration|year=1968|publisher=vol.1, Edinburgh University Press|isbn=0-85224-017-1}}, pp15β16.</ref> The [[Criminal Lunatics Act 1800]], passed with retrospective effect following the acquittal of [[James Hadfield]], mandated detention at the regent's pleasure (indefinitely) even for those who, although insane at the time of the offence, were now sane. The [[M'Naghten Rules]] of 1843 were not a codification or definition of insanity but rather the responses of a panel of judges to hypothetical questions posed by Parliament in the wake of [[Daniel M'Naghten]]'s acquittal for the homicide of Edward Drummond, whom he mistook for [[United Kingdom|British]] [[Prime Minister]] [[Robert Peel]]. The rules define the defense as "at the time of committing the act the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or as not to know that what he was doing was wrong."<ref name="M'Naghten's case">{{cite BAILII |litigants=Daniel M'Naghten's case|date=19 June 1843 |court=UKHL |year=1843 |num=J16 |parallelcite=(1843) 8 Eng Rep 718; [1843] ALL ER Rep 229 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> The key is that the defendant could not appreciate the nature of their actions during the commission of the crime. In ''[[Ford v. Wainwright]]'' 477 U.S. 399 (1986), the [[US Supreme Court]] upheld the [[common law]] rule that the insane cannot be [[capital punishment in the United States|executed]]. It further stated that a person under the death penalty is entitled to a [[competency evaluation (law)|competency evaluation]] and to an evidentiary hearing in court on the question of their competency to be executed.<ref name="supct">{{cite web |url=http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=Ford%20v.%20Wainwright&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0477_0399_ZO.html |title=Ford v. Wainwright 477 U.S. 399 |publisher=Cornell Law School |access-date=2007-10-04 }}</ref> In ''[[Wainwright v. Greenfield]]'' (1986), the Court ruled that it was fundamentally unfair for the [[prosecutor]] to comment during the court proceedings on the petitioner's silence invoked as a result of a [[Miranda warning]]. The prosecutor had argued that the respondent's silence after receiving Miranda warnings was evidence of his sanity.<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=w5_jF7YIPzYC&q=louie+l+wainwright&pg=PA456 |title=The American Dictionary of Criminal Justice: Key Terms and Major Court Cases |publisher=Scarecrow Press |access-date=2007-10-06 |isbn=978-0-8108-5406-2 |author1=Champion, Dean J |year=2005 }} </ref> In 2006, the US Supreme Court decided ''[[Clark v. Arizona]]'', upholding Arizona's restrictions on the insanity defense. ''[[Kahler v. Kansas]]'', 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a case in which the US Supreme Court justices ruled that the [[Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Eighth]] and the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendments]] of the [[US Constitution]] do not require [[U.S. state|states]] to adopt the insanity defense in [[criminal]] cases that are based on the defendant's ability to recognize right from wrong.<ref name=opinion>{{ussc|name=Kahler v. Kansas|volume=589|year=2020|docket=18-6135}}.</ref><ref name=OpinionAnalysis>{{cite web|url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/03/opinion-analysis-majority-upholds-kansas-scheme-for-mentally-ill-defendants|title=Opinion analysis: Majority upholds Kansas scheme for mentally ill defendants|last=Howe|first=Amy|date=2020-03-23|website=SCOTUSBlog|access-date=2020-03-23}}</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)