What is legally insane

Insanity defense has been in existence since many centuries; however, it took a legal position only since the last three centuries. Mc Naughten believed that he was persecuted by the Tories, and evidence was brought to show that he had been totally deluded on this subject for some time. This Mc Naughten rule became a legendary precedent for the law concerning the defense of insanity. Since it is drafted, no changes have been made. However, in , there was an attempt by the Law Commission of India to revisit the Section 84 in their 42 nd report, but no changes were made.

On analysis of the Section 84 IPC, the following essential ingredients can be listed. For the sake of easy understanding, the Section 84 IPC can be divided into two broad categories of, major criteria medical requirement of mental illness and minor criteria loss of reasoning requirement. Major criteria mental illness requirement mean the person must be suffering from mental illness during the commission of act. Minor criteria loss of reasoning requirement mean the person is:.

Both major mental illness and minor loss of reasoning criteria constitute legal insanity. Modern criminal law is based on the belief that humans are morally responsible and not harm causing agents. To be held criminally responsible, two essential elements have to be proven, beyond reasonable doubt, a the person committed the act actus reus [ 18 ] b in doing so, the person acted with his or her own free will, intentionally and for rational reasons mens rea.

Psychiatrists may be asked to assist the court in determining whether certain mental disorders affected a person's ability to form the intent necessary to make that person legally culpable.

Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged crime done by a person with mental illness. The courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity.

A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, and not with medical insanity. This is purely a legal concept and is unrelated to the various psychiatric diagnoses. In simple words, legal insanity means, at the time of the commission of the act, the person should be suffering from mental illness and also have a loss of reasoning power.

This issue is clearly depicted in Section 84 IPC as that person incapable of knowing:. Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behavior of a psychopath affords no protection under Section 84 IPC. In one of the landmark decisions, in the case of Surendra Mishra versus state of Jharkhand,[ 20 ] the Apex Court has stated that an accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under Section 84 of the IPC is to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity.

But the term insanity carries different meaning in different contexts and describes varying degrees of mental disorders. Every person who is suffering from mental illness is not exempted from criminal liability. The mere fact that the accused is conceited, odd, irascible, and his brain is not quite all right, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and affected his emotions or indulges in certain unusual acts, or had fits of insanity at short intervals or that he was subject to epileptic fits and there was abnormal behavior or the behavior is queer are not sufficient to attract the application of Section 84 of the IPC.

The Apex Court in its judgment reported that though accused suffered from certain mental instability of mind even before and after the incident but from that one cannot infer on a balance of preponderance of probabilities that the appellant at the time of the commission of the offense did not know the nature of his act; that it was either wrong or contrary to law, hence rejected insanity defense. The crucial point of time for determining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offense was committed.

The person suffering from mental illness is one of the facts for Section 84 IPC. However, other facts which also needs to be given importance are: Motive for the crime, the previous history as to mental condition of the accused, the state of his mind at the time of the offense, and the events immediately after the incident that throw a light on the state of his mind.

Under law, every man is presumed to be sane and assumed to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his acts unless the contrary is proved. Similarly, every person is also presumed to know the law. The prosecution does not have to establish these facts. In insanity defense, there are two aspects of proving an offense, which are as follows:. The burden of proving the commission of an offense is always on the prosecution, and that never shifts.

The prosecution has to prove the same beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the onus of proving the existence of circumstances Section 84 IPC for insanity defense would be on the accused Section of the Evidence Act and the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. The accused has to prove by placing material before the court such as expert evidence, oral and other documentary evidence, presumptions, admissions or even the prosecution evidence, satisfying that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or of knowing that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law.

Mere absence of motive for a crime and howsoever atrocious the crime may be, in the absence of plea and proof of legal insanity, cannot bring the case within the ambit of Section 84 IPC.

The onus of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused, hence the plea of insanity should be taken by the accused or by his lawyer or his family members or previous history of insanity is revealed, it is the duty of an honest investigating officer to subject the accused to a medical examination and place that evidence before the court and if this is not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused.

To summarize, the concept of insanity defense is a legal one and not a medical one. Although a psychiatrist's opinion is taken into account ultimately the decision to accept or reject the defense lays with the court the world over. Based upon the reasoning power of the defendant during the circumstances of the crime as shown in the Table 1. Assessment of other evidences to ascertain reasoning power of the defendant during the commission of crime[ 16 ].

A standard evaluation procedure of all patients who plead insanity defense is absolutely necessary. It is unfortunate that till date, no such standardized procedures exist in our country. Psychiatrists are often called for conducting mental health evaluations and treatment. Apart from treatment, courts may also request for various certifications.

This includes:. Certifying the presence or absence of psychiatric illness if the defendant claims for an insanity plea defendant's mental status when the alleged offense took place ;. Under the formulations used by many states to determine whether or not a person is or is not insane, persons who are psychopathic or sociopathic are more or less exempted from asserting it. The formulations used exempt or exclude mental illnesses or conditions that are only really seen through repeated behavior that can be considered antisocial, such as repeatedly committing crimes.

Have questions for Brendan Bukalski? E-mail him at askthelawyer gmail. Editor's note - the answers provided in this column are general in nature, and should not be relied upon as legal advice or interpreted as creating an attorney-client relationship. Most Popular. Couple at Cedarhurst will mark 77th anniversary on Veterans Day. Girl Scouts want to give thanks.

Recipes with Rachel: Comfort food in 30 minutes. If found to be insane, the defendant will be ordered to a mental facility, and the trial will be held only if sanity returns. They are usually sentenced to special facilities for sex offenders, supposedly with counseling available. However, there are often maximum terms related to the type of crime, so that parole and release may occur with no proof of cure of the compulsive desire to commit sex crimes.

Manion hurries inside and finds his wife Laura lying on the floor, raped and beaten by Quill. Manion picks up a gun, walks to Quill's place of employment, shoots and kills him, then calls the police. A defense psychiatrist testifies that Laura's injuries caused Manion to suffer a sudden psychic shock called dissociative reaction, and that dissociative reaction creates an unbearable tension that people may try to alleviate by taking immediate and often violent action.

The psychiatrist's testimony supports a conclusion that Manion was legally insane under the irresistible impulse test. This example is loosely based on the classic film, Anatomy of a Murder.

Defendants have to advise prosecutors prior to trial if they plan to rely on an insanity defense. Typically, defense lawyers and prosecutors each obtain their own psychiatrists to examine a defendant and testify at trial.

Judges appoint government-paid psychiatrists for indigent defendants. Defendants have the burden of convincing judges or juries by either a preponderance of the evidence or by the tougher standard of clear and convincing evidence that they were insane at the time they committed a criminal act. Evidence rules forbid defense psychiatrists from testifying to an opinion that a defendant was legally insane at the time a crime was committed.

They can only provide a medical diagnosis concerning a defendant's mental illness. Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are rarely set free. Instead, they are almost always confined in mental health institutions. They may remain confined for a longer period of time than had they been found guilty and sentenced to a term in prison.