INSANITY

Prepared by: BRIKSHYA SHARMA

The role of mental health in criminal law
The role of mental health in criminal law is a complex and important issue that
relates to the capacity of individuals to be held responsible for their actions.
In general, criminal law assumes that individuals have free will and the ability
to control their behavior. However, mental illness can impact an individual's
ability to control their behavior and make them less responsible for their actions.
The role of mental health in criminal law is primarily concerned with
determining the degree to which a defendant's mental health contributed to their
criminal behavior.
In some cases, a defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity if their
mental illness prevented them from understanding the nature of their actions or
the consequences of those actions.
In such cases, the defendant is typically committed to a mental health institution
rather than being sent to prison.
For example, a defendant with a mental illness may be sentenced to a mental
health facility rather than a prison. Alternatively, a defendant with a mental
illness may receive a reduced sentence if their mental illness contributed to their
criminal behavior.
Mental illness can impact an individual's ability to control their behavior and
make them less responsible for their actions, and as a result, the criminal justice
system has developed specific measures to address this issue.

One of the primary ways in which mental health plays a role in criminal law is
through the insanity defense.
The insanity defense is a legal defense that can be used in some cases where a
defendant's mental illness prevented them from understanding the nature of their
actions or the consequences of those actions. If a defendant is found not guilty
by reason of insanity, they are typically committed to a mental health institution
rather than being sent to prison.
Insanity as a general defense
In recent years, there has been growing recognition of the need to address
mental health issues within the criminal justice system.
Many jurisdictions have implemented specialized courts and diversion programs
that are designed to provide treatment and support for individuals with mental
illness who come into contact with the criminal justice system. These programs
aim to provide individuals with the resources they need to manage their mental
illness and avoid future criminal behavior.
Historical roots of the insanity defense
Insanity defense has been in existence since many centuries; however, it took a
legal position only since the last three centuries. There were various tests used to
declare a person legally insane such as Wild Beast test, The Insane Delusion
test, and “test of capacity to distinguish between right and wrong.” These three
tests laid the foundation for the landmark Mc Naughten rule.
The insanity defense
dates back to ancient
times, thus predating
psychiatry as a medical
discipline. Traces of the
defense can be found in
ancient Greek and
Roman texts.
Passage by Plato
This is Plato’s proposal in The Laws. Several things are of interest here. First, insanity
is apparently a defense that has to be raised by the defendant. The doer or the doer’s
advocate must plead for it. Second, insanity is being compared with other excusing
conditions such as being afflicted with diseases or being very old or very young.
In addition, although there will be no further judicial sentences, the person will still
have to make restitution. Such restitutions can be seen as a component of the insanity
defense in current Western criminal law systems.
Furthermore, if murder has been committed, the person will be exiled for one year (the
reason for such an exile is not mentioned in this quote). Finally, it is essential that the
mental condition have been present at the exact moment of the crime: “he should be
judged to have broken the law while in such a condition”
A famous historical insanity standard is the “wild beast test” that goes back to thirteenth century England.
This test refers to children and wild beasts, thus placing “insane” defendants, as it were, in another
category of beings who are already excused: children and animals. The defendant’s mental state is,
apparently and in a relevant way, similar to that of children and animals, and therefore he should not be
punished.
In Rex v. Arnold (1724), according to Justice Tracy, a defendant “must be a man that is totally deprived
of his understanding and memory, and doth not know what he is doing, no more than an infant, than a
brute, or a wild beast; such a one is never the object of punishment,”
At present, legal decisions on insanity are generally based on psychiatric and psychological evaluations
and testimony.
The M’Naghten Rule
The M’Naghten Rule (1843) was the outcome of what has been considered “the most important case in the
history of the plea of insanity.” In many jurisdictions, M’Naghten is the standard for legal insanity. In
addition, many other legal systems have insanity standards that reflect elements of M’Naghten.
Daniel M’Naghten, a Scotsman, suffered from a delusion that the Tories were persecuting him and,
therefore, he planned to kill the British Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel. However, in what looks like a
case of mistaken identity, M’Naghten killed Edward Drummond, the secretary to the Prime Minister,
instead. Eventually, M’Naghten was acquitted on grounds of insanity.
At the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from
disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that
he did not know what he was doing was wrong.
The Relativity of Social Normality
To understand what insanity is, we must make a detour into the social understanding of normality. Most
people consider a person insane relatively to themselves or to other so-called normal people.
If a standard normal person could be described accurately, this could form the basis for a comparison
between any individual person and normality. But inevitably questions arise: Who is a normal person?
How is normality defined? Or more radically, are there any normal people? Can normality be defined at
all?
We might as well say that normality is a social matter, dependent on time and culture rather than on the
chemistry of the brain. There is no assurance that what is currently considered sub-normal behavior will
not be categorized normal or even above-normal in the future. Various normal and above-normal behaviors
in the past would definitely be categorized sub-normal today, and some would even require exclusion from
society on grounds of dangerousness.
If a person behaves “normally” based on how society defines normality, he is not within the spectrum of
insanity. Even if he suffers from a mental deficiency, as long as it does not affect his behavior to the extent
that it exceeds the boundaries of normality, he cannot be considered insane. This classification is purely
social, regardless of any medical diagnosis. (relate it with legal insanity and medical insanity)
For example, a person hears voices that tells him to do harmful things but he has trained himself to ignore
them would not be considered “abnormal” because his behavior is not affected by the mental deficiency.
The public interest is raised only when behavior exceeds the range of normality. Only when the
abnormality is the result of problematic behavior, based on the perspective of society, is it considered an
object for social intervention by means of criminal law.
If the behavior is classified as abnormal, its cause is examined. If the cause is mental, insanity may be
relevant. Different societies may have different definitions for what is considered to be a mental cause or
mental deficiency, as discussed above. The mental cause may have to do with both cognition and volition,
and the different balance of the two in the definitions of the mental cause in different societies reflects the
significant social aspect of insanity.
Therefore, the range of normality is relative. This relativity is measured in social terms, and any society
may have different ranges of normality, bounded by different borderlines.
Medical Insanity vs. Functional Insanity and
Their Relevance to Legal Insanity
The concepts they represent have some relevance to the legal concept of insanity, which
is still used in some jurisdictions to determine criminal responsibility.
“Medical insanity" refers to a state of mental illness or disorder that is recognized by
medical professionals as impairing a person's ability to understand the nature and
consequences of their actions. This may include conditions such as schizophrenia,
bipolar disorder, or severe depression.
"Functional insanity," on the other hand, refers to a temporary state of mental impairment
that may arise in response to extreme stress or emotional disturbance. For example, a
person who experiences a traumatic event, such as a violent assault, may temporarily
lose their ability to think clearly or behave rationally, even if they do not have a pre-
existing mental illness. (battered woman syndrome)
In the context of legal insanity, the key question is whether a person was capable of
understanding the nature and consequences of their actions at the time of the offense. In
most jurisdictions, this is assessed using the "M'Naghten rule," which asks whether the
defendant was suffering from a mental illness or defect that prevented them from
understanding the nature of their actions or distinguishing right from wrong.

Both medical and functional insanity may be relevant to a legal insanity defense,
depending on the circumstances of the case. If a person has a diagnosed mental illness
that impaired their ability to understand the nature of their actions, this may be a strong
defense.
Provisions regarding Insanity
Muluki Criminal Code;
Section 14: Act of a person of unsound mind not to be offence: No act done by a person who, at the time of
doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature, characteristic, fault or
consequence of such act, shall be considered to be an offence.
Criminal procedural code;
Section 128: Provisions relating to trial of person of unsound mind: (1) If there is any reasonable reason to
believe that any accused person, being of unsound mind, is incapable of making his or her defense, the
court may also order causing such person to be examined and treated by a licensed doctor
( 9 sub sections)
 Cases regarding Insanity
 Tirtha Dangol VS HMG, D.N: 2355, NKP: 2042
Padmaraj Joshi murdered his wife Damiyanti Devi with an axe. He claims that he
attacked his wife unconsciously. Padmaraj had a habit of creating nuisance around the
house, didn’t eat in time, made a fuss about most things and had sudden bursts of anger
in the past as well. He was diagnosed with Schizophrenia through a neurological test by
Kanchanpur Hospital. The decision of the court was that instead of being punished for
the murder of his wife, Padmaraj Joshi was proved not guilty on the basis of insanity .
 Devendra Pudasaini VS Nepal Government, D.n: 9844, NKP: 2074
Act alone does not amount to guilt, it must be accompanied by mens rea.
Devendra Pudasaini threw 2 of his daughters; 7 yr old Divyani Pudasaini and & 4 yr old
Sarika Pudasaini in the Bagmati river. The youngest daughter drowned and was lost
whereas the older one broke her arm as she was rescued by people. Apparently he
asked his daughters to accompany him to take a bath in the river.
He was angry because he had a fight with his father regarding some property matters
and claims that he didn’t take his daughters to the river with the intention of killing
them. Rather due to his condition, he committed such an act.
According to doctor Pradip Man Singh, Pudasaini had been suffering from Psychosis
and had been taking several medications for it.
 Andrea Yates case:
A Texas jury found that Andrea Yates was insane when she drowned her five children in a
bathtub five years ago, and the panel acquitted her of capital murder in the deaths.
She was originally sentenced to life in prison in 2002 after a jury found her guilty of
capital murder. That decision was thrown out and Yates was granted a new trial by an
appeals court due to the erroneous testimony of a prosecution medical expert.
She was to leave prison and be committed to a state mental hospital, where she would
undergo continued treatment for an unspecified period of time. Her attorneys said it is
highly unlikely that she would ever be released, and her case will remain under court
supervision.
Yates had a long history of mental illness. She attempted suicide twice, was diagnosed
with recurrent postpartum depression and had been hospitalized several times for
psychiatric care.
(believed that Satan had taken over her body and soul and was eyeing her children's souls next. if she killed her children while they were still innocent, they would be
sent to heaven and she would have defeated Satan.)
THANK YOU!!