Insanity Test

Insanity Test
Student’s Name
Institution
Course
Instructor’s Name
Date
Abstract
While the insanity defense is perhaps the most debated of all approaches to criminal defense, it is also, to some extent paradoxically, one of the least applied. On many instances when it has been applied, especially in the much-revealed 1984 discharge of John W. Hinckley, Jr. for the tried murder of President Ronald Reagan, the defense of insanity has inclined to arouse public discussion. The defense of insanity proclaims that a perpetrator should not be ruled guilty as a result of the offender’s insanity. The model for the insanity defense is that an individual who is insane has no intention needed to execute an unlawful action as he or she either is not aware that the conduct is unlawful or unable regulate his or her behaviors even in the situations where the individual knows that the behavior is immoral or illegal. This concept is debatable since insanity itself is hard to describe, and the events where insanity can be applied to drop criminal accountability are tough to illustrate. Various categories of the tests have been used in the insanity defense. The paper analyzes four types of tests for the insanity defense.

Insanity Test
M’Naghten test
M’Naghten test concentrates on whether a criminal respondent was aware of the type of the offense or knew the right and illegal act when the crime was committed (Hallevy, 2015). The suspect has to meet one of the two separate measures. Some courts have different views of whether the illegal act implies legal or morally wrong or both.

Also, some states have removed the first section of the rule or test where a perpetrator is found legally insane because of not completely knowing what he or she has committed. The test was developed by the English House of Lords in the mid-19th century. The establishments follows a scenario where, in 1843, Daniel M’Naghten, an Englishman who was clearly a fearful schizophrenic under the misunderstanding of which the individual was being offended, gunshot and murdered Edward Drummond, the Secretary to British Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel (“United States Insanity Defense Law Summary and Law Digest”, 2016). The suspect knew that the secretary was the Prime Minister. The situation resulted in the need to develop criteria for the insanity defense. The rule specifies that every person should assume to be stable, and to create a justification on the basis of insanity, it has to be evidently verified that the individual indicted was straining under the deficiency of intention, from an infection of awareness, and failing to understand the quality and type of offense he was committing; or if he or she was aware, that the individual was not aware of the act was wrong (“United States Insanity Defense Law Summary and Law Digest”, 2016). The rule has thrived and is widely applied in most states concerning the defense of insanity alongside the other tests, such as the Irresistible Impulse Test. However, it is being criticized for its inflexible cognitive criteria, making it hard for the suspects to be ruled not guilty by insanity reason.
 Irresistible Impulse Test
This test expands the description of insanity and encompasses more than an aspect of cognition. It includes whether the suspects understand the right from wrong, as well as whether the defendants could manage their impulses to act unlawfully. The test was first developed by the Alabama Supreme Court in the Parsons v. State case in 1887 (Kimonis, 2015). The Irresistible Impulse Test adds an element of mental illness besides the ability of the suspects to separate the right from wrong. The rule has acquired recognition in different states as a supplement to the M’Naghten Rule where the distinction of the right from wrong was still regarded a crucial part of any description of insanity. In some occasions, the Irresistible Impulse Test is perceived to be a variant or version on M’Naghten Test or Rule. Besides, while Irresistible Impulse Test was perceived to be a vital remedial on M’Naghten Rule’s cognitive prejudice, it is still subjected to some disapprovals of itself (“United States Insanity Defense Law Summary and Law Digest”, 2016). Accordingly, it appeared to make the description of senselessness too expansive, not considering the impracticality of finding the actions that were uncontainable as opposed to just unrestrained, and it also makes it easier for the defendants to present phony insanity. Again, like the M’Naghten Test, this rule is also too narrow as it discounts all but the persons who are completely unable to manage their acts. However, Irresistible Impulse Test has been applied in many states together with the M’Naghten Test to find out insanity and has also been adopted for its modified variant by the American Law Institute under its Model Penal Code insanity definition.
The Durham Rule
The Durham Test, a variant that was initially executed in New Hampshire in 1871, was adopted by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the Durham v. the United States case in 1954 (Kimonis, 2015). It is occasionally called the product test. The rule specifies that the suspect is not illegally accountable if his illegal act is the result of a mental defect or infection. The Durham Rule was primarily viewed as a means of shortening the M’Naghten Rule and the Irresistible Impulse Test through changing irrationality and its association with the offense an issue of impartial finding. Nonetheless, the attempt of the analysis was found to be tougher to substantiate in reality than in concept (“United States Insanity Defense Law Summary and Law Digest”, 2016). The Durham Rule was criticized as the Circuit Court has given no practical descriptions of mental infection, product, or defect. While it has tried to simplify the M’Naghten Rule and the Irresistible Impulse Test, the Durham Rule has proved very hard to use and, in 1972, the Circuit Court dismissed it. Today, just the New Hampshire state still applies the rule as a means of defining insanity.
The American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code Test
As a way of reacting to the censures of the different rules or test for the insanity defense, the American Law Institute (ALI) developed, in 192, a new rule for its Model Penal Code (Hallevy, 2015). The test states that an individual is not accountable for the illegal act if, when the act was performed due to mental infection or defect, the individual has no significant ability to either recognize the delinquency of his action or ensure that his actions adhere to the law requirements. The Model Penal Code test is more comprehensive than the Irresistible Impulse Test and the M’Naghten Rule. It questions whether perpetrators have a significant inability to recognize the delinquency of their actions or to act as per the law requires as opposed to the absolute awareness demanded by M’Naghten and the total incapacity to regulate or manage behavior specified by the Irresistible Impulse Test. It aims at integrating the concepts of the three other tests. The ALI Model Penal Code has received recognition and, by 1982, every federal court and most of the state law courts had implemented it. Although a portion of the states has declined the ALI test since 1982, and it is not in use at the federal rank, ALI rule is still applied in 18 states in their insanity definition (Kimonis, 2015).

References
Hallevy, G. (2015). The Shadows of Normality: Legal Insanity under Modern Criminal Law. Available at SSRN.
Kimonis, E. R. (2015). Insanity Defense/Guilty but Mentally Ill. The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology.
United States Insanity Defense Law Summary and Law Digest. (2016). Lawdigest.uslegal.com. Retrieved 23 November 2016, from http://lawdigest.uslegal.com/criminal-laws/insanity-defense/7204