CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY

MODULE 1

DEFINATION: Criminal psychology can be described as a branch of applied

psychology that focuses on determination of the criminal’s reasons for
committing a crime. It can also be described as a study of thoughts, intensions,
reactions and wills of a criminal so as to ascertain why the crime was
committed. The legal dictionary defines criminal psychology as “a study of will,
intention, thoughts, feelings and reactions of criminals and those who engage
in criminal behaviour”.
Criminal psychology to a greater extent derives its scientific methods and
rigours from that anthropology. However, it uses psychological principles,
techniques and knowledge in the process of investigation so that both crime
and the criminal behaviours are understood relatively in greater depth.
Criminal psychology thus helps the police and other investigating agencies by
applying psychological principles in understanding a crime, the criminal and to
an extent the victim as well as the entire situation that led to the criminal
behavior. In the investigation, the focus is more often on the criminal, that is,
the offenders.

Purpose of Criminal Psychology:

 Understanding Criminal Minds: Criminal psychology seeks to understand
the complex inner workings of individuals who commit crimes. This
knowledge can be invaluable in:
o Crime Prevention: By identifying risk factors and psychological
traits associated with criminal behavior, psychologists can develop
strategies to prevent crimes before they occur.
o Investigation: Understanding criminal psychology can aid law
enforcement in profiling offenders, creating investigative leads,
and conducting effective interrogations.
o Rehabilitation: Criminal psychologists play a role in designing
rehabilitation programs aimed at reducing recidivism (repeat
offenses). They can help offenders develop coping mechanisms,
address underlying mental health issues, and promote prosocial
behavior.
 Victim Assistance: Criminal psychologists can help victims understand
the motivations behind the crime they experienced. This knowledge can
empower victims and promote a sense of closure.
  Legal System: Criminal psychologists can provide expert testimony in
court, offering insights into a defendant's mental state and criminal
culpability.

Assessing criminal responsibility is a complex process that determines

whether a defendant can be held legally accountable for their actions. It's a
crucial step in the criminal justice system, ensuring fairness and appropriate
consequences. Here's a breakdown of the key aspects involved:
Mental State at the Time of the Crime:
 The core question in assessing criminal responsibility is the defendant's
mental state at the time of the offense.
 This evaluation focuses on whether the defendant had the capacity to
understand the nature and wrongfulness of their act.

The McNaughten Rule comes from a mid-19th-century English case. There, a

man claimed he had a disease of the mind that rendered him not liable for his
criminal act. In 1843, McNaughten tried to kill England's prime minister but
instead shot and killed Edward Drummond, Secretary to the Prime Minister.
When McNaughten was arrested, he was claiming that people were conspiring
against him and wanted to kill him. At trial, his attorneys claimed that
McNaughten was insane and that he could not recognize that his actions were
legally and morally wrong. The jury agreed, returning a verdict of not guilty by
reason of insanity. McNaughten was remanded to a mental institution where
he lived out the rest of this life.
The M'Naghten rule can be defined as a legal test of criminal insanity used to
determine if a defendant knew whether or not their actions were wrong at the
time that they committed the crime. The M'Naghten test assumes that all
defendants are sane unless they can demonstrate that, at the time of the
crime, they either did not know what they were doing, or they did not know
that what they were doing was wrong.

The M'Naghten rule has two components:

1) the person must not have known, at the time of the crime, what they were
doing, or
2) the person did not know, at the time of the crime, that what they were doing
was wrong.
Example A:
A mother believed that her child was possessed by the devil and that the only
way to get the devil out of the child was by cutting off the child's hand. This
person likely did not know that what she was doing was wrong because she
thought she was protecting her child from possession by the devil.
Example B:
A person with a severe mental illness attacked another person, believing that
person to be an alien sent from outer space to kill the president of the United
States. In this case, the person likely did not know what they were doing (killing
a person rather than an alien) or that what they were doing was wrong
(because they believed they were protecting the president).

In conclusion it states that

1. an individual suffers from a “defect of reason,” which is
2. caused by a “disease of the mind,” and, as a result,
3. does not know the “nature and quality” of the act or that it was wrong.

DURHAM RULE
The Durham Rule finds its roots in the landmark 1954 case, Durham v. United
States. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
was responsible for this significant legal decision. The ruling was ground-
breaking, introducing a new perspective into the criminal justice system. It
originated from a landmark case in American legal history known as Durham v.
United States (1954).
In the Durham case, the defendant, Monte Durham, was charged with
housebreaking and larceny. During the trial, experts testified that Durham
suffered from a mental disease at the time of the offense. However, the court
did not find a legal standard to determine Durham's criminal responsibility
based on his mental condition.
As a result, the court established the Durham Rule, which states that a
defendant is not criminally responsible if the unlawful act was the product of
mental disease or defect. This standard expanded the scope of insanity
defenses beyond the M'Naghten Rule and the irresistible impulse test, which
were the prevailing standards at the time.
Before this, mental illness was rarely considered a valid defense in criminal
cases. But the court in the Durham case ruled differently. They decided that if a
person’s criminal actions were the direct outcome of a mental disorder, they
couldn’t be held accountable in the same way.
If the defendant successfully establishes that their mental illness caused their
criminal behavior, they could be found not guilty by reason of insanity. This
doesn’t mean they go free. Instead, they usually receive treatment for their
mental illness.
It originated from a landmark case in American legal history known as Durham
v. United States (1954).
In the Durham case, the defendant, Monte Durham, was charged with
housebreaking and larceny. During the trial, experts testified that Durham
suffered from a mental disease at the time of the offense. However, the court
did not find a legal standard to determine Durham's criminal responsibility
based on his mental condition.
As a result, the court established the Durham Rule, which states that a
defendant is not criminally responsible if the unlawful act was the product of
mental disease or defect. This standard expanded the scope of insanity
defenses beyond the M'Naghten Rule and the irresistible impulse test, which
were the prevailing standards at the time.

DIFFERENCE
The McNaughten rule and the Durham rule are two legal standards used to
determine whether a defendant in a criminal case is legally responsible for
their actions.
The McNaughten rule, also known as the “right-wrong” test, is a standard used
in most U.S. states and many other countries. It holds that a defendant is not
guilty by reason of insanity if, at the time of the crime, they did not know the
nature and quality of their actions, or if they did not know that their actions
were wrong. Under this standard, the defendant’s mental state at the time of
the crime is the primary consideration.
The Durham rule, also known as the “product” test, is a standard used in some
U.S. states and was adopted by the federal courts for a time in the mid-20th
century. It holds that a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if their
criminal behavior was the “product” of a mental disease or defect. This
standard places more emphasis on the relationship between the defendant’s
mental state and their criminal behavior, rather than on their awareness of the
nature and quality of their actions.
Overall, the main difference between the McNaughten and Durham rules is
that the former focuses on the defendant’s knowledge of right and wrong,
while the latter focuses on the connection between their mental state and their
criminal behavior. However, it is important to note that different jurisdictions
may use different standards, and the legal standards for determining insanity
can vary depending on the time and place.
A crime is a moral wrong that is perpetrated against the entire society. It
disrupts the calm, and some crimes can provoke mass panic. Every crime has
four main components: a person (expressed by the words “whoever,” “person,”
or “man”), intention to harm (men’s rea or guilty mind), a willed act (or
omission), or the results of a willed act or omission (actus reus). And Injury. In
this article, we will learn about men’s rea and actus reus.

Criminal Responsibility Evaluation: Understanding the Implications

The five elements of criminal responsibility include:
1. The actual physical act (actus reus)
2. The mental state (mens rea) of the accused
3. The actions (causation)
4. The proof that actus reus and men’s rea occurred almost simultaneously
(concurrence)
5. The facts of the crime, also referred to as the attendant circumstances.

6. Being able to show that a person has all five of these elements is
important for a criminal conviction. Criminal responsibility evaluations are
a retrospective review of the person's mental status at the time they
committed the offense and if the person who committed the crime can be
held accountable, by law. These assessments can be conducted by several
different providers who hold specialized education in this field, such as
psychologists, psychiatrists, or forensic mental health evaluators.
Although criminal responsibility is evaluated consistently the same at the
federal level, it is important to note that this is not true at the state level,
as each state can have additional statutes that must be followed.
7. An evaluation for criminal responsibility is typically directed by the court
or requested by the client who committed the crime, the defense
attorney, or the prosecutor. The evaluations focus on the circumstances
surrounding the crime, such as if the person who committed the crime
has mental health issues or a history of substance abuse. It will take into
account the age of the client, the type of crime that was committed, and
other miscellaneous factors such as who else was there, what was the
context in which the crime occurred, etc. In the mental state example
discussed earlier, there are very different circumstances happening when
John is angry at Jake, retrieves his gun, and then shoots him versus when
John is in the backyard and slips on the ice, accidentally discharging the
weapon.
8. Once all of these factors are taken into consideration, a recommendation
will be made by the person who is completing the evaluation about
whether or not the person was mentally competent at the time the crime
was committed and if they should be held legally accountable for the
 crime they committed. Sometimes one evaluation is all that is needed;
however, sometimes both the defence and the prosecution will request
an evaluation from different specialists. Sometimes they agree, and
sometimes they do not.

MENS REA AND ACTUS REA

A crime is a moral wrong that is perpetrated against the entire society. It
disrupts the calm, and some crimes can provoke mass panic. Every crime has
four main components: a person (expressed by the words “whoever,” “person,”
or “man”), intention to harm (mens rea or guilty mind), a willed act (or
omission), or the results of a willed act or omission (actus reus). And Injury. In
this article, we will learn about men’s rea and actus reus.

MEN’S REA: The phrase “the act is not guilty until the mind is guilty,” defines
men’s rea the best. The accused cannot be held accountable under the criminal
law unless he can be proved to have acted with intent to commit a crime.
Men’s rea is a culpable state of mind characterized by intention or purpose, as
well as knowledge of the consequences. The degree of men’s rea refers to the
level of mental presence in the crime and is directly related to the level of
responsibility. The greater the degree of men’s rea in a crime, the harsher the
punishment.
For example, intentionally killing a human being, which would constitute the
crime of murder, would result in the most severe punishment under the law
due to the highest degree of men’s rea associated with it; on the other hand, if
a person accidentally hits someone and that person dies, he would not be
liable for any crime in the absence of men’s rea.
Model Penal Code defines men’s rea more specifically in 4 categories based on
the individual's knowledge of the risk as opposed to the risk of the activity.
Model Penal Code Definitions
 1. purposely - must want or hope that a certain outcome will occur and
take particular steps for that outcome to materialize
 2. knowingly - awareness that results are most certainly going to occur
 3. recklessly - disregard of unjustifiable risk
 4. negligently - should have been aware of substantial risk
 * 5. (sometimes) strict liability - liable for committing the action whether
intent was present, such as possession or statutory rape (there may not
be intent to harm in either case, but both acts are illegal).
ACTUS REUS: the guilty act or guilty omission. An act is doing something that
you shouldn’t and an omission is not doing something that you should have.
The actus reus definition is the physical acts that make up a crime. The term
actus reus comes from Latin, and the literal translation of actus reus is ''guilty
act.'' For example, the actus reus in a kidnapping is the actual taking and
detainment of another person. In the courtroom and legal settings in
argumentation, a lawyer must prove that the accused is guilty of the criminal
action in order to establish actus reus. In order for an actus reus to exist, the
act must have been voluntarily committed.

The relationship between actus reus and men’s rea is often described as the
"guilty act" and the "guilty mind" working together. The actus reus is the
physical manifestation of the men’s rea, which is the mental element of the
crime. The level of men’s rea required to establish criminal liability varies
depending on the offense. The most common level is intent, which refers to the
perpetrator's conscious desire to commit the crime. Recklessness, which refers
to a disregard for the risk of harm, and negligence, which refers to a failure to
exercise reasonable care, can also be used to establish criminal liability.
Criminal responsibility may occasionally be proven in the absence of men’s rea.
These crimes are classified as strict liability offenses because the prosecution is
not required to prove that the defendant was mentally competent at the time
of the crime. The principles of actus reus and men’s rea are crucial in
determining criminal responsibility. For someone to be judged guilty of a crime,
both requirements must be met.

Key Differences Between Durham Rule and McNaughten Rule

Feature Durham Rule McNaughten Rule
Focus Causation between mental Defendant's ability to understand the
illness and criminal act nature and wrongfulness of the act
Core Not criminally responsible if Not criminally responsible if suffering
Principle act resulted from mental from "defect of reason" that prevents
disease or defect understanding the nature and
wrongfulness of the act
Scope Broader - considers any Narrower - requires specific mental state
mental illness that caused impacting understanding of the act
the act
Complexity Considered vague and open Clearer and more specific criteria
to interpretation
Expert Still required to establish May be used to support the claim of
Testimony the mental illness and its "defect of reason"
connection to the act
Current Abandoned in most Still used in some jurisdictions, but often
Status jurisdictions modified
Legacy Highlighted importance of Established a foundation for assessing
causation in insanity criminal responsibility
defense