The Difference between Mental Illness and Insanity - Essay Example

"McNaughton rule" in this case is based on the insanity presumption. As such, a defendant who pleads insanity at the time of committing the act is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he or she was suffering from a mental disorder so severe that he or she could not know the quality and nature of the act committed at the time of insanity (John, 2006). This implies proving that he or she was not in a position to establish that the act was either right or wrong. However, John notes that mental illness cannot act as a defense since an individual may be mentally ill but still know the nature of the act. This shows the reason why Clark’s case was dismissed.

This is because alcoholism is considered one of the causes of mental illness and not insanity. The presumption made is that an individual who murders someone is capable of knowing the type and quality of action committed and must therefore take responsibility for his actions (John, 2006). Therefore it does not fall under the definition of insanity on which McNaughten's rule is based. Under this rule, the murderer will be required to prove that he or she was insane and did not know what he or she was doing which is not easy.

Rational and guilty
This is a situation in which an individual committed an offense, knew what he or she was doing, and knew whether the act was right or wrong. The person is, therefore, considered rational and guilty of the offense committed.

Guilty but insane
This is a situation in which an individual accused might be found guilty of an offense, but because he or she was insane at the time of the commission of the act, the person would be taken for a medical check-up and treatment first after which the accused would proceed to prison. This is based on the fact that the accused has pleaded guilty to the alleged offense.

Not guilty because of insanity
This is a situation where the accused is judged not guilty due to the fact he or she did not know his or her actions and the consequences of the act. However, such people are usually taken to a mental organization until he or she becomes of sound mind or sometimes stay locked up for life.
If you were deciding this case, how would you rule? Briefly explain your decision
My ruling of the case would be that the murderer is rational and guilty. This I based on the fact that the person only suffered mental illness but not insanity. For this reason, he did it, knew what he was doing, and had knowledge that the murder was wrong.
Read More