INSANITY AND INTOXICATION evaluation

Critically evaluate 2 general defences (insanity and intoxication) and give reforms 

INSANITY

One criticism of the defence of insanity is that the rules were formulated in 1843, and as they have never been updated, they are based on outdated medical views. 

In 1953, the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment said that the rules were obsolete and misleading. This is backed up by new research and increased understanding of medical conditions such as diabetes and epilepsy-which can now simply be controlled by drugs.

Nowadays, no intelligent person would categorise diabetics or epileptics as insane. The definition of insanity was made when psychiatry was in its infancy and it was made by judges not doctors, which is heavily criticised. 

Another criticism of insanity is that the over-reliance on the external/internal factor test often produces bizarre abnormalities (QUICK and HENNESSY). It means that sometimes, diabetics, epileptics and sleepwalkers are legally classified as insane, whilst they are not medically insane.

The completely different outcomes from an internal defect and the outcomes from an external defect are extreme. (Not guilty by reason of insanity compared to a complete acquittal). 

The distinction between an internal and external defect was decided because a defect caused internally is likely to reoccur, unlike one caused by an external factor. However, the decisions made in the case of QUICK (hypo) contradict this, as the defendant is likely to fail to eat again, whereas the defendant in HENNESSY (hyper) is not likely to fail to take his medication.

The judges themselves are not happy about the rules as shown by the comments of the judge in QUICK:

“Common sense is affronted by the prospect of a diabetic being sent to a mental hospital when in most cases the disordered mental condition can be rectified by eating a lump of sugar, it is felt that the condition of too much sugar can be put right just as quickly”.

Lord Diplock in the case of SULLIVAN 1984 and Lord Lane in the case of BURGESS urged Parliament to look into this matter.

A final criticism of the defence of insanity is that the law is unsatisfactory/too narrow as it doesn’t protect people who clearly have mental problems. People who suffer from serious mental illness but are still able to know and understand what they are doing are not covered by insanity. 

Because the rules of insanity were made by judges and not doctors, they lay down a purely legal formula for establishing the defence of insanity. These rules have been criticised by medical professionals as not conforming to medical views of insanity. 

The defendant in the case of WINDLE was clearly medically insane, but not was not found to be legally “insane” as he did not fall in M’NAUGHTON rules.

It is also unavailable to the psychopath because he knows what he is doing yet the psychopath could use the defence of diminished responsibility & get his charge reduced from murder to manslaughter. E.g. the defendant in the case of BYRNE knew the…