Mental Illness as a Defense in Court

A defendant devising this argument might be said to be plead "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI) (Insanity defense, 2005, p. 1.)

Since the nineteenth century, California has followed general procedure in the United States in applying the M'Naghten formulation -- a test devised by the English field of Lords that focuses solely on cognitive legal injury -- to determine whether or not an individual accused of a abuse was mentally impaired at the time the crime was committed (Lashbrook, 2004). This run states that a person "ais not guilty of a crime if, at the time of the crime, they either didn't hunch forward what they were doing or didn't know that what they were doing was wrong (Insanity defense, 2005, p. 3)." The defense is therefore based on a principle that punishment is only reasonable if and when the defendant is dependent of distinguishing right from wrong.

In the United States, the Supreme Court has proceeded carefully in this area and has directed much of its attention to the straitlaced formulation of a test for insanity (Hall, 1992).

In current times, insanity has been defined as a mental impairment that either impedes a person's ability to understand the wrongfulness of an performance (the cognitive prong) or to control the act (the volitional prong). For example, in the case of Leland v. Oregon (1952), the Court held that if a state c

spate v. Horn, 158 Cal. App. 3d 1014, 205 Cal. Rptr. 119 (1984).

4. See People v. Wolff, 61 Cal. 2d 795, 801, 394 P.2d 959, 962, 40 Cal.

time he killed his married woman that his behavior was criminal.87 Indeed, it

discussion of insanity tests used by opposite jurisdictions, see MICHAEL S.

meet the act prong of section 25. In early(a) words, it is rare that a

Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.