Insanity Academic Commentary

Front 1

Hogg

Back 1

Abolitionist position
Believes a programme of reform is required to actively make space for mentally ill defendants within the defences that currently exist in the common law
The dangers of relying on a concept of mental dysfunction in 1843 is that the term 'insanity' has become outdated and offensive, having often been applied in manner troubling unconnected to medical or psychiatric reality
The current defence does nothing for the defendant who knew what he was doing and that his actions were wrong but who was, due to the nature of his condition unable to prevent himself from acting.
If we are to advocate for the abolition of the insanity defence we must advocate for a throughgoing programme of reform across all defences, with the mentally ill and/or disordered defendant in mind.
Mentally ill people are not a discrete category, fundamentally different in kind from mentally healthy, that can be dealt with by one or two separate specialised defences.

Front 2

R.D Mackay

Back 2

His research indicates that defendants who could potentially plead insanity would often prefer to plead guilty and risk incarceration rather than face stigma of having been found to be 'criminally insane.'

Front 3

Loughnan

Back 3

Despite increasing reliance on expert medical evidence, the law regards 'madness' as something that will make itself known in a way that is clear and recognisable to the lay person-which is not necessarily always the case