states (such as Montana, Idaho, Kansas, and Utah) have banned insanity defense. However, in the recent past some of the U.S. Even in India, Section 84 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the “act of a person of unsound mind” and discusses insanity defense. This is recognized by the legislation of most of the civilized nations. Hence, it is generally admitted that incapacity to commit crimes exempts the individual from punishment. The affirmative defense of legal insanity applies to this fundamental principle by excusing those mentally disordered offenders whose disorder deprived them of rational understanding of their conduct at the time of the crime. It also brings the due process of law, if that person is not in a position to defend himself in the court of law, evoking the principle of natural justice. Punishing a person, who is not responsible for the crime, is a violation of the basic human rights and fundamental rights under the Constitution of India. The concept of responsibility connects with our most fundamental convictions about human nature and dignity and everyday experience of guilt and innocence and blame and punishment. There is an urgent need to initiate formal graduation course, setup Forensic Psychiatric Training and Clinical Services Providing Centers across the country to increase the manpower resources and to provide fair and speedy trail. Researchers present a model for evaluating a defendant's mental status examination and briefly discuss the legal standards and procedures for the assessment of insanity defense evaluations. This article focuses on the recent Supreme Court decision on insanity defense and standards employed in Indian court. It is hard to determine legal insanity, and even harder to successfully defend it in court. The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by a “preponderance of the evidence” which is similar to a civil case. This means that just suffering from a mental disorder is not sufficient to prove insanity. Insanity defense is a legal concept, not a clinical one (medical one). It is based on the assumption that at the time of the crime, the defendant was suffering from severe mental illness and therefore, was incapable of appreciating the nature of the crime and differentiating right from wrong behavior, hence making them not legally accountable for crime. Insanity defense is primarily used in criminal prosecutions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |