| My professional interests |
|
Computing Law Education Science and research |
| My leisure interests |
|
Martial arts Heritage railways Garden railways Motorcycles DIY |
| Downloads |
|
Linux downloads Windows downloads Java downloads Perl downloads Home automation downloads |
| About me |
|
Home & family My CV |
| Site info |
|
Contact the author Download policy Keyword index |
Analyzed in detail, this statement says that the accused must be suffering from a `disease of the mind', and the disease gave rise to a `defect of reason', and he was not aware of the nature of the act did not know he was doing wrong.
Disease of the mind
A `disease of the mind' need not be a disease of the brain, or even a psychiatric condition: arteriosclerosis, epilepsy and diabetes have all be held to be forms of insanity. The rationale is that all have an effect on the `mind', and all result from internal factors. On the contrary, a blow to the head resulting in mental derangement will probably lead to acts classifiable as Automatism rather than insanity. Although there is no logical or medical basis for this, it may have the practical benefit that `internal' factors are liable to recur, and therefore require detention for treatment.
Defect of reason
The disease of the mind must interfere with the process of reasoning or understanding. The defence does not exist for a person who simply fails to think about his actions, perhaps as a result of depression.
Nature of the act
The accused must show that he was unaware of the nature of the act, not the moral or legal nature. A person who believes he was not doing wrong may, however, escape liability under the other limb of the M'Naghten test (as described below). A person who kills someone under the delusion that he is on a battlefield may escape liability in this way. A person who is so deluded that he stabs someone thinking he is cutting down a tree may also escape, but he also lacks the MensRea of murder, so may not be liable anyway.
Whether the accused knew he was doing `wrong'
If the accused knew that the act was illegal, then he knew he was `doing wrong' for the purpose of this test. In other words, legal wrongness, not moral wrongness, is important.Note that an irresistable impulse to commit a crime cannot found a defence of insanity, however strong.
| Search |
| Shameless plug |
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK |
| Editorial |
So you want to be a university lecturer? Read this first! Speak like your boss: new developments in managerese |
| Computing features |
|
File handling in the Linux kernel: an in-depth look at how Linux handles files, filesystems, and file I/O
All sorts of Linux stuff Confused about CLASSPATH? answers are here First steps in EJB using jBoss (recently revised for jBoss 3.2) |