Compare and contrast the Mc Naughtan rule with the Durham rule

Compare and contrast the Mc Naughtan rule with the Durham rule by Abdul Qadeer Chachar

1. Compare & contrast the Mc Naughtan Rule with the Durham Rule Abdul Qadeer Chachar Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto University of Law

2. A Principle of Criminal law used to determine the validity of the Insanity defense . Asserted by an accused, that he or she was mentally ill or irrational at the time of committing a crime and hence should not be held legally responsible for the action. The Durham rule was created in 1954 by Judge David L. Bazelon, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Durham v. United States. Durham Rule: https://criminallaw.uslegal.com/defense-of-insanity/the-durham-rule/ Source:

3. The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case. arguing that the defendant is not responsible for his or her actions due to an episodic or persistent psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act. This is contrasted with an excuse of provocation, in which the defendant is responsible, but the responsibility is lessened due to a temporary mental state Insanity defense: https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/insanity/ Source:

4. The Defendant, a deputy game warden, attempted to arrest a man suspected of illegal fishing. He pursued the suspect in his boat and latched onto his anchor chain. The suspect resisted arrest by beating the Defendant about the head with an oar. The Defendant then shot the suspect in the arm. Durham v. United States: The rule, as stated in the court's decision, held that: " an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease.“ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1885180/durham-v-united-states/ Source: Similarly same was held in State v. Pike (1869 ) as mentioned above .

5. Durham Rule required a jury's determination that the accused was suffering from a mental disease and that there was a causal relationship between the disease and the act . Because of problems in its implementation, the Durham rule was rejected by the same court in the 1972 case  United States v. Brawner. The Durham insanity defense is used only in New Hampshire and has been the established insanity defense in New Hampshire since the late 1800s https://criminallaw.uslegal.com/defense-of-insanity/the-durham-rule/ Source:

6. United States v. Brawner: Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder. The Court held a rehearing to determine the proper standard for the insanity test . Issue: Whether there should be a new standard adopted with respect to the defense of insanity . The Court decided to accept the American Law Institute definition of insanity as defined below for trials after this date. “A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law .” https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1022100.html Source:

7. “A” has been diagnosed with  paranoia . Most psychiatric experts agree that individuals afflicted with paranoia unreasonably believe that the human population is “out to get them.” “A” works under the direct supervision of “B”, who has a physical condition called “walleye.” B’s walleye makes it appear that she is looking to the side when she addresses people. “A” gradually becomes convinced that “B” is communicating secret messages to their coworkers when she is speaking to “A”. “A” is genuinely frightened that “B” is telling their coworkers to kill her, and she decides she needs to defend herself. “A” brings a gun to work one day, and when “B” begins talking to her about her tendency to take overlong lunches, “A” pulls the gun out of her cubicle and shoots and kills “B” If “A” killed “B” in New Hampshire, she might be successful with her claim. “A” has a mental disease or defect,  paranoia . “A” can probably produce evidence, such as psychiatric expert testimony, that her paranoia “caused” or “produced” her criminal conduct, which was shooting “B” . Thus a trier of fact could acquit Arianna on the grounds that her conduct is excusable under these circumstances. Example of the Durham Insanity Defense: “A” claims she is not guilty for killing “B” by reason of insanity.

8. The M'Naghten R ule: A test applied to determine whether a person accused of a crime was sane at the time of its commission and, therefore, criminally responsible for the wrongdoing . The M'Naghten rule is a test for criminal insanity. Under the M'Naghten rule, a criminal defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if, at the time of the alleged criminal act, the defendant was so insane that he or she did not know the nature or quality of his or her actions. The M'Naghten rule on criminal insanity is named for Daniel M'Naghten and developed in Queen v. M'Naghten Case. Source: https:// www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/the-m-naghten-rule.

9. Queen v. M'Naghten: Daniel M'Naghten attempted to kill the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, but instead shot and killed Edward Drummond, the Prime Minister's Secretary. M'Naghten was suffering from insane delusions at the time of the killing. The House of Lords formulated the M'Naghten rules which apply in determining whether a person should escape criminal liability on the grounds of being insane. "In all cases of this kind the jurors ought to be told that every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction: and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that 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 as not to know that what he was doing was wrong ." Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/MNaghtens-Case Lord Tindal CJ held that :

10. “the accused in order to get exemption from criminal responsibility on the ground of insanity, must prove that, owing to a defect of reason due to a disease of mind, he did not know the nature and quality of his act, if he did know this, that he did not know that he was doing wrong” The M'Naghten Rule prescribed that: An offender is insane under this test if mental illness prevents the offender from knowing the difference between right and wrong. Other states have replaced the M’Naghten Test with a modified version known as the Brawner Test. Under this test, defendants are insane if, because of mental disease or defect, they lack the substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of their actions or to conform their behavior to legal requirements Source: https:// www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/the-m-naghten-rule.

11. Example 1: A man murdered his wife and daughter, and then waited calmly for the police to arrive. Three mental health experts testified that he was too psychologically ill to understand that his criminal acts were wrong. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity and sentenced to 10 years in a mental health facility . Example 2: A woman with severe schizophrenia is charged with assault and battery after attacking her next door neighbor with a shovel. She claims the neighbor was actually a demon who was trying to harvest her soul. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity after the court determined that she failed to understand the nature of her actions. Examples of Insanity Using the M'Naghten Rule: Source: https:// www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/the-m-naghten-rule.

12. A defendant does not know the nature and quality of a criminal act if the defendant is completely oblivious to what he or she is doing. This is quite rare, so most defendants claiming insanity choose to assert that they did not know their act was  wrong . However, jurisdictions differ as to the meaning of “wrong.” Some jurisdictions define wrong as “legally wrong,” meaning the defendant must be unaware that the act is against the law. Case Authority: State v. Crenshaw, 2010. State v. Skaggs, 2010. Court defined wrong as “legally and morally wrong,” meaning the defendant must also be unaware that the act is condemned by society. Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/second-district-court-of-appeals/2010/2010-ohio-5390.html https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-state-v-crenshaw and

13. the Mc Naughtan Rule with the Durham Rule : Compare and Contrast Differences: Mc Naughtan Rule Durham Rule The M’Naghten insanity defense is cognitive and focuses on the defendant’s awareness The Durham rule focuses on the defendant’s ability to control conduct. Under the M’Naghten Rule test, the criminal defendant must either not understand what he or she did, or be unable to distinguish right from wrong. This test depend on the notion that defendants may be diseased such that they are incapable of understanding their own actions. The Durham Rule holds that if a criminal defendant’s “mental disease or defect” was the reason that he or she committed a crime, the defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity. This test is currently used only in New Hampshire, since it has been deemed too broad by other states and jurisdictions.

14. Mc Naughtan Rule Durham Rule M'Naghten rule was outdated and did not take into consideration the broad range of mental disorders that had been identified by modern science. The Durham attempted to create a simple and open-ended insanity test as Judge Bazelon later wrote "open up the courtroom to all the information and analysis available to the scientific community about the wellsprings of human behavior." The M’Naghten insanity defense is cognitive and focuses on the defendant’s awareness, rather than the ability to control conduct. Durham Rule used to determine the validity of the INSANITY DEFENSE asserted by an accused, that he or she was insane at the time of committing a crime and therefore should not be held legally responsible for the action. Differences :

15. Mc Naughtan Rule Durham Rule Psychiatrists are reluctant to enter the witness box because of the anachronistic and unscientific M'Naghten Rules, which are based on a simplistic and incomplete definition of mental illness. The Durham rule, perpetuated the dominant role of EXPERT TESTIMONY in determining criminal responsibility, a task that many critics felt was best left to a jury. The M’Naghten insanity defense, is called the right-wrong test. The Durham defense, is called the product test. Differences :

16. Mc Naughtan Rule Durham Rule Mc Naughtan Rule is type of Insanity defense. Durham Rule is also type of Insanity defense. In Mc Naughtan Rule there is no mens rea. In Durham Rule there is no mens rea. By the mid-twentieth century M'Naghten rule came under increasing criticism. the court failed to give definitions for product, mental disease, or mental defect. Thus the Durham insanity defense is extremely difficult to apply, and the D.C. Circuit rejected it in 1972 in the case of U.S. v. Brawner Mc Naughtan defense relies on principles of proximate causation Durham insanity defense relies on ordinary principles of proximate causation Similarities:

17. Section 84 of PPC Act of a person of unsound mind: “Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law .” Section 464-471 and 473-475 of CrPC Sections of PPC and CrPC regrading insanity: Case Law related to above mentioned Sections: The Imdad Ali Case 2002 H aq N awaz vs Mirza Waseem Baig 2013 Muhammad I drees vs State 2011 Nawab Khan vs State 2009 Bao SALEEM vs State 2008

18. Whenever crime is committed, a forensic psychiatrist should get involved in the case along with the investigating officer. Judiciary should have trained forensic psychiatrists, investigating officers or lower court judge. Conditions inside prisons should be improved. Ultimately they are responsible for worsening the mental conditions of under-trial prisoners. The legal education or awareness should provided to under-privileged among under-trials as they can get an insanity plea. Reforms:

19. Webliography : US-Legal- https://criminallaw.uslegal.com/defense-of-insanity/the-durham-rule / Justia- https ://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/insanity / and https :// law.justia.com/cases/ohio/second-district-court-of-appeals/2010/2010-ohio-5390.html Court Listener- https :// www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1885180/durham-v-united-states/ Find Law- https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1022100.html and https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/the-m-naghten-rule Britannica- https :// www.britannica.com/topic/MNaghtens-Case Lexisnexis- https ://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-state-v-crenshaw

20. BBC- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37828839 TRT World- https :// www.trtworld.com/asia/pakistan-court-blocks-execution-of-two-inmates-with-mental-illness-44046 Pakistan Case Law- https ://cite.pakcaselaw.com/scmr-supreme-court/2013/59 / and https://cite.pakcaselaw.com/mld-lahore-high-court-lahore/2008/847 / and https://cite.pakcaselaw.com/ylr-lahore-high-court-lahore/2010/1156 / and https://cite.pakcaselaw.com/ylr-lahore-high-court-lahore/2011/224/ Webliography :