Essay on insanity part 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

helpful notes...

Description

Essay on insanity. Insanity defence is an area of law that has been subject to criticism with many calls for reform. One of the main subjects of critisisms is that it is outdated, and it fails to reflect the modern psychiatric views of mental disorders. This author will try to present the current problems of the law and suggest some possible reforms as have been suggested by the law commission. General characteristics. A successful defence of insanity leads in a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. The judge has the discretion to make a hospital order for the defendant. it is governed by the M’naghten rules which provides that all men are presumed to be sane but a defendant can rebut this presumption by proving that on the balance of probabilities firstly that on the time of the offence he has suffering from a defect of reason. In R v Clarke this was held to require inability to exercise reason rather than failing to do so. Additionally, this defect of reason must have been caused by a disease of the mind. A disease of the mind as defined in Kemp, must affect the mental faculties of reason memory and understanding.

This must have been cause by an internal factor and not an external factor which applies for automatism. A well-known example of an internal cause is when a diabetic fails to take his medication and suffers from hyperglycemia and commits an offence. This is an internal factor as the loss of control arises from the disease itself as seen in Hennessey(failed to take insulin and claimed it was because of stress that his wife left him.) where as in Quick(failing to eat after insulin-automatism). Epilepsy is also an example of a disease of the mind that can lead to a claim of insanity as seen in Sullivan. Also the rules state that the defendant must not know the nature or the quality of his act which requires awareness of the physical nature and the quality of his act. Nature of the act concerns its characteristics where quality concerns its consequences. The defendant can also be excused when he did not know that the act he was doing was wrong. As seen in R v Windle wrong means contrary to the law. In Windle the comments of the defendant after the arrest showed awareness that his conduct was contrary to the law thus he could not claim insanity.

Problems. 1) Defect of reason. In R v Clarke this was held to require inability to exercise reason rather than failing to do so. This means that a momentary failure of concentration even where cause by mental illness is not enough. One problems associated with this is that the definition of defect of reason rules out abnormalities of the mind such as inability to control one’s emotions or compulsions as they do not reflect impaired powers of reasoning. This has been criticized by Ashworth who argue that some forms of mental disorder impair practical reasoning and the the power to control ones actions should be recognized on this part of the defence. 2) Disease of the mind.

A disease of the mind is not a medical definitions but A disease of the mind in this area of law, must affect the mental faculties of reason memory and understanding as described in Kemp . Thus the disease of the mind is not limited to mental illness but to diseases which affect the proper functioning of the brain. A closer look in case law provides examples of what has been described as a disease of the minf. In Kemp for example(arteriosclerosis). In Sullivan ( epilepsy). Sleepwalking has also been held to be a disease of the mind in Βurges. These cases show that a defendant who commits a criminal offence during an epileptic seizure or while sleepwalking is deemed to be legally insane. McKay and Reuber argue that “is surely no longer acceptable” for cases of an epileptic seizure. These cases one can argue are controversial and unsatisfactory and as Ormerod suggests these leaves people exposed to a verdict of a trivial nature mental condition that do not pose a a real future risk to society....