Three Approaches to the Insanity Defence - Essay Example

The M'Naughten standard came into being in 1843 and derives from the case of Daniel M'Naughten. M'Naughten, in a failed attempt to assassinate the British Prime Minister, killed his secretary (Huckabee, 2000). His reason for doing so was his belief that the Prime Minister was responsible for all of his misfortunes.

Several witnesses testified to M'Naughten's apparent insanity and a jury found him not guilty because of insanity. In their review of the verdict, the House of Lords reversed it and established the M'Naughten standard which specified that a person was not guilty because of insanity if he/she could not distinguish between right and wrong. This rule was subsequently adopted in the United States, in some states without modification and others with modification. It is important to note that one of the primary weaknesses of the M'Naughten standard lies in its failure to account for control.

Some may know that their actions are wrong but are unable to control themselves. As such, some states added an "irresistible impulse" modification to the M'Naughten standard (Huckabee, 2000). The Durham test was adopted as a direct outcome of ever-increasing dissatisfaction with M'Naughten. Psychologists had criticized the latter as premised on outdated conceptualizations of mental disorders and legal scholars and practitioners based on its rigidity. Therefore, the 1954 case of Durham v.

The United States witnessed the rejection of the M'Naughten standard, with the appellate court finding that a defendant could not be found guilty if his/her act was the outcome of his/her mental/psychiatric disorder (Huckabee, 2000). A defendant's capacity for moral reasoning was discarded in favor of a more objective, scientific determination of the relationship between the act and the defendant's mental condition. Initially embraced by more than half of the states, the Durham model was later formally rejected as vague and problematic.

Indeed, in 1972 it was officially overruled by a panel of federal judges (Huckabee, 2000). The Durham test may have overcome the rigidity of the M'Naughten standard and, indeed, may have embraced a more scientific appreciation of the concept of mental disorder but, in so doing, it rendered the definition of mental disorder too wide and too vague. The question of what constituted a mental defect was brought to the fore, with debates raging around whether the stated should be limited to psychosis or if it should include disorders whose only symptom was anti-social behavior.

The point here is that this test was extremely problematic because of its vagueness. In direct reaction to the shortcomings of the M'Naughten and the Durham tests, the ALI came into being. Established in 1968 by the American Law Institute, ALI serves as a model defense statute, combining both of the tests outlined in the preceding while seeking to address their shortcomings. As such, it consolidates the "right and wrong" principle of the M'Naughten test with the "irresistible impulse" modification (Huckabee, 2000).

In consolidating the said modification, ALI sought to soften the rigidity which characterized the M'Naughten test, just as did the Durham test. Rather than question whether defendants can distinguish between right and wrong, ALI focuses on the substantial capacity to distinguish between the two. Furthermore, like the Durham test, it focuses on the science of mental disorders, in the sense that it embraces a scientific understanding of the phenomenon. At the same time, it overcomes the vagueness and laxity of the Durham test whereby one whose mental illness only manifests itself in the killing of others, cannot be regarded as innocent for reasons of mental insanity (Huckabee, 2000).

This is because insanity was never expressed except in repeated killings, or attempts to harm others. This limitation limits the possibility of the abusive use of this test. As such, this test builds upon the two earlier ones but addresses their inherent shortcomings. Based on the discussion presented above, ALI emerges as the stronger of the three tests. It is, by no means, a perfect model but it has been formulated with a clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of its predecessors and, as such, determined the constructive exploitation of their strengths and the overcoming of their weaknesses.