INSANITY DEFENSE

ADVANTAGE AND DISADVANTAGE

Abstract

The defence of insanity is primarily used in criminal prosecutions. This is founded on the premise that the perpetrator was suffering from a serious mental disorder at the time of the crime and therefore unable to understand the essence of the crime and differentiate between right and wrong conduct, thereby rendering them not legally responsible for the crime. Defence of insanity is a legal term and not a professional one (medical). This suggests that merely suffering from a mental illness is not enough to prove insanity. The defendant has the burden of proving defence of insanity by a "preponderance of the facts," equivalent to a criminal trial. It is difficult to assess legal insanity, and much more difficult to defend it effectively in court. This paper focuses on the history of the defence of insanity and talks about its advantages and disadvantages.

Keywords: Criminal responsibility, Indian Penal Code Section-84, insanity defence, insanity advantage, insanity disadvantage.

INTRODUCTION

The possibility of commitment partners with our most key sentiments about human impulse and respectability and standard experience of fault and genuineness and issue and discipline. Rebuffing a person, who isn't at risk for the bad behaviour, is an encroachment of the basic human rights and chief rights under the Constitution of India. It moreover brings the reasonable treatment of law, if that individual isn't in a circumstance to watch himself in the official court, calling the standard of ordinary equity. The affirmed defence of genuine franticness applies to this fundamental rule by exonerating those mentally disarranged liable gatherings whose disarray prevented them from claiming a sound understanding of their lead at the hour of the wrongdoing. Thus, it is all surrendered that inadequacy to complete bad behaviours bars the individual from discipline. This is seen by the authorization of an enormous bit of the mingled countries. Indeed, even in India, Section 84 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the "showing of a person of unsound mind" and discusses insanity safeguard. Notwithstanding, in the progressing past a part of the U.S. states, (for instance, Montana, Idaho, Kansas, and Utah) have disallowed wildness resistance.

Next to no exploration has been done on this subject in India, be that as it may, there are hardly any investigations on investigating the clinical image of the patients in jail. A milestone concentrate in the criminological psychiatry of Indian setting happened in 2011, in which 5024 detainees were evaluated on semi-organized meeting plan revealed that 4002 (79.6%) people could be analyzed as having a conclusion of either psychological instability or substance use. After barring substance misuse, 1389 (27.6%)[1] detainees despite everything had a diagnosable mental issue. Another investigation from India depict an extremely bleak image of patients in legal psychiatry settings and support, is a need to streamline the method of referral, determination, treatment, and certification. To address this issue of streamlining the procedure of assessment of madness protection and affirmation, this paper centres around semi-organized evaluation in the Indian setting dependent on milestone Supreme Court choices. Moreover, it will likewise introduce a model for assessing a litigant's psychological status assessment and quickly examine the legitimate norms and systems for the appraisal of madness barrier assessments. Words such as “insanity” and “unsoundness of mind” are legal terms which are commonly used in the court of law.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF INSANITY

The defence of insanity has been in presence since hundreds of years; in any case, it took a lawful position just since the most recent three centuries. There were different tests used to proclaim an individual legitimately crazy, for example, Wild Beast test, The Insane Delusion test, and "trial of ability to recognize good and bad." These three tests established the framework for the milestone Mc Naughten rule.

In 1843, a wood-turner from Glasgow, Daniel Mc Naughten, shot and killed Edward Drummond, mistaking him for Sir Robert Peel. Mc Naughten acknowledged that he was distressed by the Tories, and evidence was brought to show that he had been cheated in regards to this issue for quite a while. His viewpoint was apparent from the beginning when he should be convinced, in conclusion, deluded, into contending "not subject." After hearing seven clinical spectators whoinsisted that he was insane, the adjudicator ended the primer, the jury got the phenomenal choice without condensing and without leaving, and Mc Naughten was powerfully devoted to the Bethlem Hospital. Promptly from that point on, five suggestions were drawn which were called Mc Naughten rules.

This Mc Naughten rule transformed into a staggering perspective for the law concerning the boundary of madness[2]. In India, frenzy monitor law, Section 84 IPC is solely established on the Mc Naughten rules. Since it was drafted, no movements have been made. Regardless, in 1971, there was an undertaking by the Law Commission of India to come back to Section 84 in their 42nd report; anyway, no movements were made.

Section 84 of IPC states that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is incapable of knowing the idea of the demonstration at the hour of doing it, because of the unsoundness of the mind, or who is doing which is against the statute[3].

On examination of Section 84 IPC, the accompanying basic fixings can be recorded. For simple comprehension, Section 84 IPC can be partitioned into two general classifications of, significant criteria (clinical necessity of dysfunctional behaviour) and minor criteria (loss of thinking prerequisite). Significant criteria (dysfunctional behaviour necessity) means the individual must be experiencing psychological instability during the commission of the act. Minor criteria (loss of thinking necessity) means the individual is:

• Incapable of knowing the idea of the demonstration

• Incapable of realizing his demonstration isn't right

• Incapable of realizing that it is in opposition to the law.

Defence by Insanity in Indian Law

Provision for Insanity Defence is given under Section 84 of IPC under “Act of person of unsound mind” which states that nothing is an offence if it is done by a person who, at the time of commission, because of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of the act he/she is doing and also was unaware that the same is prohibited by law.

Analysing the aforementioned Section, it is clear that the provision is much influenced by the McNaughton’s Test, and since it is based upon the 5-point propositions it is divided into two broad categories, first being Major criteria which cover cases where the person was suffering from mental illness during the crime and the Second being Minor criteria which cover cases:

1. That the person was incapable of knowing the nature of the act,

2. That the person was incapable of knowing that his/her act was wrong,

3. That the person did not know that what he/she was doing is contrary to law.

Under both these criteria, the insanity is legal insanity and therefore once proven the accused could be acquitted.

It is also to be noted here that Section 84 IPC, is based upon the fundamental principles of,

(a) Actus nonfacit reum nisi mens sit rea which means that nothing is wrong unless done with a guilty intention and

(b) Furiosi nulla voluntas est which means that a person with mental illness has no free will and therefore he/she can do no wrong. This way Section 84 discharges a person with mental illness from his liabilities because of absence of mens rea or an intent.

Medical Insanity v. Legal Insanity

Under Section 84 IPC legal test of mental illness has been laid down but nowhere in the statute there is a precise definition of terms such as “unsoundness of mind” or “insanity” been given, therefore they carry a different meaning in different contexts and describes varying degrees of mental disorders. A person with mentally illness is not simply exempted from criminal responsibility because there is a distinction between legal insanity and medical insanity and courts are concerned only with legal insanity.To simply differentiate the two, a person suffering from a mental illness is called “medical insanity,” however case of “legal insanity” person suffering from mental illness also have losses his/her reasoning power at the time of the commission of the crime. Legal insanity refers specifically to the “mental state” of a person at the time of committing the crime and is therefore purely a legal concept and have no psychiatric links. For insanity to qualify for legal insanity any one the 3 essentials of Section 84 as mentioned earlier must be fulfilled and only then the accused can seek a defence by way of insanity.

In Bapu @ Gajraj Singh vs State of Rajasthan[vii], Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords no protection under Section 84 IPC.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand[viii] , held that Section 84 IPC is only for legal insanity and not medical insanity and therefore a person suffering from mental illness is not exempted from criminal liability.

Therefore, under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not only that the person is suffering from mental illness but it is the circumstances based upon evidences that are essential to prove that the person was also unable to understand the nature of his act and committed a crime.

Burden of Proof

Under the law, every man is presumed to be sane and is assumed to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his acts unless the contrary is proved.This way Insanity Defence is more like a divergence from the general law and therefore to prove and avail Insanity Defence there are specific provisions prescribed under law. For proving insanity defence, the burden is always on the accused who has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of the commission of offence he/she was “legally” insane. The accused has to prove by placing evidences such as oral and written documentary that would how that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that his/her act was contrary to law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra , Held that the time when the unsoundness has to be proven is the time when the crime is actually committed and the burden of proving this, lies on the party which is claiming the benefit of Section 84. In T.N. Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka, the Apex Court has observed that the burden on the accused is only to satisfy the preponderance of probabilities which makes it similar to that of civil cases.

ADVANTAGES OF INSANITY DEFENSE

Guilty

To make the insanity defence work, the defendant party should admit that the crime happened, but the defendant did not commit it. So, rather than trying to dispute the facts, the goal is to find the defendant as being innocent because of his mental state[4]. Since many societies do not want to give punishments to people who do not in reality what is right and what is wrong. In that case, the trial’s evaluation would become more about an individual’s state of mind, rather than the actual case facts where harm was caused.

Death Penalty

One great advantage of the defence of insanity is that the accused can be prevented, even if he was found guilty, from being penalized with death. In association with crime, the penalty could be very lenient compared to an accused who is found guilty, but who does not prove insane.[5]

Lifesaver

If a person, in reality, is suffering from mental illness or is mentally unstable, will be considered as his mental condition made him commit the crime, not his evil intention, which means that the defence could save his life. We all know that capital crime carries a punishment of eventual death. But being found not to be guilty because of insanity means a death penalty is out of the question. It can mean that the accused is only housed in a centre in a professional mental health care centre. Though it may not be a prison, it still gets him off the streets.

Lenient Sentence

A person can get some respite from the court simply by the virtue of defence of insanity. While he would be declared medically and criminally insane, he would not be tried under the same circumstances as the accused person who is sane minded.

No Imprisonment

In certain circumstances, people accused of crimes are avoided for being imprisoned if they are proven to be insane. Although the likelihood of acquittal has become slimmer over the years, a person may still get some relief. He is likely to be sent to a psychiatric centre and even released after his stay. However, it is not guaranteed that the accused will be completely forgiven.

DISADVANTAGES OF INSANITY DEFENCE

Transfer of Jurisdictions

It is to be noted that the defence of insanity is not permitted in all courts at all jurisdictions. Some have annulled it so that a case which is quite unlikely to be transferred to a court having jurisdiction of this defence unless there is a very convincing reason.

Costly

If a party tries to use the defence of insanity then the cost of the trial is increased. The defence is likely to employ specialists to evaluate the defendant, to determine the extent of existing mental illness. It is also noted that only 25% of insanity defences have been successful, accounting for only about 1 % of the total cases handled annually by the justice system, which mean that majority of people are found to be able to stand trial, even if they try to use a plea of insanity.[6]

Difficult to Prove

Because of abuse of defence of insanity in the past, judges, juries and prosecutors, these days, have become more careful towards it. The insanity of a person is indeed difficult to prove since the seriousness of the crime must be proved by endorsing it to an expert. Even after pleading the defence of insanity with certain proofs, it is ultimately up to the judge or the jury to accept or reject the defence of insanity. It may also happen that, despite being proven insane, the accused person may still be found guilty and sentenced to an appropriate sentence, including death, as per the law.

Relief is not a Guarantee

It is often thought that the plea of insanity is a smart play. It certainly isn't. Even if an accused stays in a psychiatric facility, being relieved of a prison sentence is not always a good thing. Such a stay is probably more imputable to the accused and a chance always exists to be cured and then sentenced as a healthy and ordinary person.

CONCLUSION

It is clear from above that people use it to save themselves from their crimes which they have done with evil intention but takes the plea of insanity before the court. Nowadays courts are taking these things seriously. Some people are using their money and power to prove their insanity by hiring experts. Apart from the advantages and disadvantages, people are using it for the wrong purpose and with wrong intention.

Finally, it is argued that the plea of insanity is a rich person's defence. Only wealthy defendants can retain high-priced psychiatric experts. Persons represented by public defenders are usually afforded a psychiatric examination for the defence, but they may not get the same quality of examination, nor are they typically able to hire more than one examiner. Because a two-tiered criminal justice system is morally repugnant, critics contend that the defence of insanity must be abolished.