What is the history behind the not guilty by reason of insanity verdict in England and Wales, and what does it mean for an offender to be given it?
The not guilty by reason of insanity verdict is a well established and much discussed verdict in England and Wales. It has been around for over 150 years, although not used a huge amount. It is actually rarely successful. This verdict can often be mistaken for the defence of diminished responsibility / capacity despite there being many major differences between the two. Although both are there to be used by mentally ill defendants, reason of insanity is a full defense to a crime and diminished responsibility / capacity is not. Pleading not guilty by reason of insanity is essentially equivalent to pleading not guilty, diminished responsibility / capacity is however just the defendant pleading to a lesser crime, the fact they are mentally ill is used as a mitigating factor.
The law presumes that every person has free will, is responsible for their actions and should therefore be punished in accordance with the seriousness of their crime. However, in many countries including England and Wales if someone is considered to be insane they cannot commit a crime freely, so a punishment should not follow. When a person is medically insane they cannot voluntarily commit an act …show more content…
Mental Health Act 1983) as “any disorder or disability of the mind”. Within this Act learning disabilities need to be linked with “abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct” to be covered and a “dependence on alcohol or drugs” is not in any way considered a mental disorder. The Code of Practice 2008 under the Mental Health Act 1983 does however set out situations where an alcohol or drug dependency may result in the person with this dependency to be covered in this definition of a mental
The not guilty by reason of insanity verdict is a well established and much discussed verdict in England and Wales. It has been around for over 150 years, although not used a huge amount. It is actually rarely successful. This verdict can often be mistaken for the defence of diminished responsibility / capacity despite there being many major differences between the two. Although both are there to be used by mentally ill defendants, reason of insanity is a full defense to a crime and diminished responsibility / capacity is not. Pleading not guilty by reason of insanity is essentially equivalent to pleading not guilty, diminished responsibility / capacity is however just the defendant pleading to a lesser crime, the fact they are mentally ill is used as a mitigating factor.
The law presumes that every person has free will, is responsible for their actions and should therefore be punished in accordance with the seriousness of their crime. However, in many countries including England and Wales if someone is considered to be insane they cannot commit a crime freely, so a punishment should not follow. When a person is medically insane they cannot voluntarily commit an act …show more content…
Mental Health Act 1983) as “any disorder or disability of the mind”. Within this Act learning disabilities need to be linked with “abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct” to be covered and a “dependence on alcohol or drugs” is not in any way considered a mental disorder. The Code of Practice 2008 under the Mental Health Act 1983 does however set out situations where an alcohol or drug dependency may result in the person with this dependency to be covered in this definition of a mental