|
shyscyberchamber.com
|
|
THE ATTIC
:
Insanity (As a Defence) |
Date
Added
APR 2004 |
There are in fact two 'insanity' defences:
1. That, because of a disease of the mind, an offender does not know the
nature and quality of his act; and
2. That even if he did know the nature and quality of his act, because f a
disease of the mind he did not know it was 'wrong'.
As in pleas of diminished responsibility, it is for the defence to establish a
defendant's insanity 'on a balance of probabilities'. It is for the jury
to decide, and the guidelines for their use are embodied in the McNaghten Rules
which, in part, state: '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 [the jury's] satisfaction'.
The defence of insanity is notoriously difficult to establish, and some forensic
psychiatrists, such as the American Dr Ronald Marman, believe that it is
impossible to find a method for objectively evaluating criminal insanity that is
acceptable to all psychiatrists.
It is a dilemma that is further complicated when a cunning killer attempts to
fake insanity; though this is less likely now that the supreme penalty for
murder is not death. One outstanding example from the past is the case of
John George Haigh, the English, 'Acid Bath Murderer' who attempted in 1949, to
establish a defence of insanity with preposterous confessions to drinking the
blood of his victims. This was a particularly transparent piece of guile
in the light of previous conversations Haigh had with police officers during
which he pointedly asked: 'What are the chances of anyone being released from
Broadmoor?'
An unusual situation arose in the case of Peter Sutcliffe, the English serial
killer called 'The Yorkshire Ripper'. Sutcliffe claimed that his murderous
attacks on women whom he believed to be prostitutes were in direct response to
instructions from God, which he had heard emanating from a grave in Bingley
cemetery. In an unusual collaboration, the Ripper's defence attorney, the
Crown prosecutor, and the Attorney General agreed that Sutcliffe was suffering
from paranoid schizophrenia and sought to have the trial averted by placing him
immediately in a special hospital. It was the trial judge, Mr Justice
Boreham, who insisted that the trial proceed, that the jury be the final
arbiters of Peter Sutcliffe's sanity. In fact, the jury found him sane and
guilty of thirteen murders and seven attempted murders. Ironically, just
three years after his sentence began, Sutcliffe had to be moved from the
top-security wing at Parkhurst Prison on the Isle of Wight to Broadmoor - his
mental stability had deteriorated to such a degree that psychiatric treatment
was imperative. The Yorkshire Ripper is now, if he was not at his trial,
legally insane.
In Britain the success of an insanity defence will require the special verdict
'not guilty by reason of insanity', and the prisoner will be committed to
hospital until such time as the Home Secretary directs otherwise. |
|
BACK TO TOP |
|
Check out
the
latest
Crypt Polls!
|