Though the insanity defense rarely applies in criminal trials, it remains a controversial issue. The criminal law provides a defense for people who, in result of their mental condition, should not be responsible for what would be a criminal act. The defense of “ insanity” dates back to 1843.
The insanity defense originated from the case of Daniel M’Naghten, who was one of the first people on record to successfully use the defense. The defendant was charged with murder and acquitted by reason of insanity. The defendant murder the victim, believing that the victim was involved in a conspiracy to kill him. Before the M’Naghten ruling, In 1581 the English legal stated that “If a madman in the time of his lunacy” kills someone, they cannot be held accountable. During the 18th century, The British courts invented the “wild beast” test, where defendants are not to be convicted if they could not understand their action. The court system no longer use the terms …show more content…
Both NGRI and GBMI are types of verdicts, not type of defense. NGRI means the defendant is found not guilty on the basis of mental state at the time of the crime, while GBMI the defendant is considered mentally ill, requires psychological treatment. The research studies show that the defendant that pleads not guilty by reason of insanity about 1% of all cases and legally proven in only 25%. So abolishing the insanity defense wouldn’t have an impact on serious crimes but should have limits and stronger test to prove that the defendant is truly insane or not. The insanity defense is often misunderstanding, based on people who believe that the defendant has mental problems can get away without punishment for their crimes. However, the defendant that's found not guilty by reason of insanity is sent to a mental institution for an extended
The insanity defense originated from the case of Daniel M’Naghten, who was one of the first people on record to successfully use the defense. The defendant was charged with murder and acquitted by reason of insanity. The defendant murder the victim, believing that the victim was involved in a conspiracy to kill him. Before the M’Naghten ruling, In 1581 the English legal stated that “If a madman in the time of his lunacy” kills someone, they cannot be held accountable. During the 18th century, The British courts invented the “wild beast” test, where defendants are not to be convicted if they could not understand their action. The court system no longer use the terms …show more content…
Both NGRI and GBMI are types of verdicts, not type of defense. NGRI means the defendant is found not guilty on the basis of mental state at the time of the crime, while GBMI the defendant is considered mentally ill, requires psychological treatment. The research studies show that the defendant that pleads not guilty by reason of insanity about 1% of all cases and legally proven in only 25%. So abolishing the insanity defense wouldn’t have an impact on serious crimes but should have limits and stronger test to prove that the defendant is truly insane or not. The insanity defense is often misunderstanding, based on people who believe that the defendant has mental problems can get away without punishment for their crimes. However, the defendant that's found not guilty by reason of insanity is sent to a mental institution for an extended