| 释义 |
insanity
(insane automatism) n. (in criminal law) A defect of reason, arising from mental disease, that is severe enough to prevent a defendant from knowing what he did or that what he did was wrong. A person accused of a crime is presumed sane and therefore responsible for his acts, but he can rebut this presumption and escape a conviction if he can prove (see burden of proof) that at the time of committing the crime he was insane. For purposes of this defence, insanity is defined by the M’Naghten Rules. These were formulated by judges after the trial of Daniel M’Naghten (1843), who killed the Prime Minister’s secretary by mistake for the Prime Minister, under the delusion that the government was persecuting him, and was acquitted on the grounds of insanity (R v M’Naghten (1843) 10 Cl & F 200; 8 ER 718). According to the rules, the defendant must show that he was suffering from a defect of reason arising out of “a disease of the mind” at the time of committing the act. This would usually include most psychoses, paranoia, and schizophrenic diseases, but psychopaths and those suffering from neuroses or subnormality would not normally fall within the terms of the rules. The defendant must also show that, as a result of the defect of reason, he either did not know the “nature and quality” of his acts, i.e. he did not know what he was doing (R v Clarke [1972] 1 All ER 219), or he did not know that his acts were wrong, even if he knew their nature and quality (R v Windle [1952] 2 QB 826). If the defendant is suffering from an insane delusion, he is treated as though the delusion was true and will have a defence if there would normally be one on those facts (for example, if he kills someone under the insane delusion that he is acting in self-defence, since self-defence is a defence). Medical evidence may be brought, but the jury are entitled to form their opinion on the facts. If found to be insane the defendant is given a special verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity” and may be admitted to hospital, may be subject to a supervision order, or may receive an absolute discharge. Magistrates’ courts are not empowered to return a special verdict. They will either grant a complete acquittal, if the defendant’s evidence of mental abnormality amounts to a denial that he had any necessary mens rea for the crime, or they may make a hospital order, if the crime with which he is charged is one for which they could usually imprison him. If someone in custody for trial is suffering from mental illness or severe subnormality, he may be detained in hospital and not brought to trial until he is fit. A person who is insane at the time of his trial, in the sense that he does not understand the charge and cannot properly instruct his lawyers, may be found unfit to plead. See also general defences; irresistible impulse; non-insane automatism. |