INSANITY: LOOPHOLE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

AUTHOR: BARGE VAISHNAVI VIJAYSINGH

INTRODUCTION:?

The insanity defence has an extended history & was created after a few preliminaries & trials. M’Naughten rules stressed “understandability of good & fiendishness” & “scientific” instead of a moral or emotional implications. Insanity defence is most commonly used in criminal proceedings. It is based on the idea that the guilty party was suffering with psychological maladjustment at the time of the offence, delivering them incapable of getting a handle on the idea of the wrongdoing & recognising right from legal liability. In civil proceedings, defendants are obliged to make “clear & convincing evidence” to support the allegation of insanity. Legal insanity is difficult to identify & even more difficult to defend properly in court.

The concept of self-defence through insanity dates back to the Greek & Roman eras. Insanity was first recognised as a defence to criminal charges in a 1581 English legal treatise, which said that “if a crazy or a natural idiot or a maniac in time when kills someone,” they will not be held liable. It was recognised. According to the "wild beast" test devised by British courts in the 18th century, defences should not be guilty unless they understand the crime better than “new-borns, animals or wild monsters.” The insanity defence is employed to get out of trouble rather than to explain the facts & the crimes.?

The fundamental & crucial ideas of our legal system are that legal responsibility entitles both actus reus & mens rea. To be held accountable for a person who does a criminal act while being aware that the act is criminal. Our penal code stipulates that unsoundness of mind is a defence to a criminal charge on the idea that one who is insane has no thought & hence cannot commit a crime, so the defence of insanity has begun.

• DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL AND MEDICAL INSANITY:

Legal insanity differs from medical insanity in that some conditions are categorised as insanity by medical science but do not fit the criteria for legal insanity in order to obtain a defence under the IPC.

• Medical Insanity:

According to scientific research, unsoundness of mind, often knows as insanity, is a type of illness that damages a person’s intellectual capacity. One or two brain functions may act improperly. According to the, there are four sorts of people who are considered to have an unsound mind:

• Idiot
• Lunatic?
• Non Compos Mentis (not of sound mind)
• Intoxicated

LEGAL INSANITY:

The legal definition of insanity differs from the medical definition, & not all types of insanity are considered forgivable by the court. Section 84 of the IPC cannot be applied unless it is established that the accused was suffering from legal insanity. Every case of legal insanity is a case of medical insanity, but not every case of medical insanity is a case of legal insanity. Section 84 of IPC covers only legal insanity. There are numerous types of psychiatric disorders, but none are legally recognised unless the prerequisites of Section 84 are met.

In the case of Sudhakaran vs State of Kerala on 26 October, 2010 the Supreme Court stated that insane in the medical sense is distinct from legal insanity. The medical community would surely classify the appellants below as a mentally ill person if the criminal was suffered from schizophrenic mentally unstable. However, in order to gain from the legal defence of insanity, the applicant would have to show that his intellectual powers were sufficiently damaged at the time of the offence that he was unaware of the nature of the deed (legally insane).

• TYPES OF INSANITY:

Temporary Insanity:?

In this case, the person has a condition in which he or she has been insane at intervals of time. He has not been entirely insane; he has been normal for a length of time before being insane for a small period of time??

Permanent Insanity:

A person is mentally sick for an indefinite period of time in this condition. And it can be proven by his prior behaviour & recent acts.

• HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF INSANITY:

Since the Middle Ages (1400), when utter insanity was regarded as a defence to a criminal charge, the defence of insanity has been recognised in English courts. By 1518, it was obvious that a lack of a guilty mind & intelligence signified a lack of intentional crime. By the late 1700s, the complete crazy definition had evolved into the wild beast test. It was the first test to determine insanity in the case of Rex vs Arnold in 1724.

• M'Naughten Case (1843):

Insanity came to the fore & ruled the legal arena for decades after the famous McNaughton killed “Edward Drummond” with a gun, believing him to be British Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel, & then fired rounds at him. The legislation established the Lunacy Commission, which was in responsibility of transferring offenders from jail to the act’s controlled mental hospitals. The status of persons who were taken to asylums changed. Prisoners were converted into patients under the supervision of medical professionals & may be released based on the doctor’s recommendations.?

This McNaughton case established as well-known precedent in the law relating to the defence of insanity offences. In India, insanity defence legislation is based solely on the McNaughton requirements, as stated in Section 84 of the IPC.

• TEST OF INSANITY:

1. The Right & Wrong test:
2. The “Irresistible Impulse” Test
3. The Durham Rule
4. The Model Penal Code Test

• HOW TO PROVE THE TEST:

Defendants must generally produce sufficient evidence to prove the following in nations that utilise or include the Irresistible Impulse Test as a criminal defence:

1. The occurrence of mental disease;?

2. The presence of mental disease; and the difficulty controlling one's behaviours or conform one's behaviour to the law as a result of the mental illness.

A criminal is not guilty by reason of insanity under the MPC test if he has been diagnosed with a serious mental impairment?and was unable to:

1. Recognize the illegality of his actions; or conform his actions to the legal standards.

A legally insane person must have been diagnosed with a mental defect usually by a judicially appointed?mental?expert?and either did not recognise difference between right and wrong or without the power to control an urge that led to the incident, according to the test.

• INDIAN JUDICIAL APPROACH ON PLEA ON INSANITY:

Mental disease or impairment are referred to as people of unsoundness of mind under Indian law. In civil process, the accused must prove the shield of insanity through “clear & compelling evidence.” This paper focuses on the most recent outstanding courtroom decision on insanity defence & the standards employed in Indian Courts.

Section 84 of the Indian Criminal Code protects those accused of insanity, and sections 328-338 of the Code of Criminal Procedure protect those accused of insanity. In general, a crime committed by a mentally ill person is not a crime, but you need to prove that you had a mental illness at the time the crime was committed. A person accused of having a fragile spirit will not be able to understand the concept of what he has committed. The insurance provided to these individuals allows them to treat the accused in good faith.

• CONCLUSION:

To avoid misunderstanding & conflicts, I believe this regulation must have a well-defined word. Furthermore, the insanity plea rule is insane since it is most powerful weapon for offenders to avoid prison, but it is extremely difficult to demonstrate a normal being’s mental condition at the time of the crime. This legislation is based not only on mental insanity, but also on legal insanity. ? ??