INSANITY DEFENSE: A LOOPHOLE FOR CRIMINALS

INSANITY DEFENSE: A LOOPHOLE FOR CRIMINALS

ABSTRACT

The defense of madness (Insanity) is mainly used in criminal proceedings. At the time of the crime, the defendant was in a serious mental or bad condition, so he could not understand the nature of the crime committed at the time. But in law, responsibility means responsibility for punishment, which is very important to treating people as free people. Anyone with will and free will is only responsible for their actions. The maxim “Actus non facet ream nisi men’s sit rea” means that a person does not sin because of physical action, and that spiritual elements in the form of malicious intentions are equally important.

In the past 145 years, the choice of criminal responsibility has been understood, knowledge and abilities have not changed, human behaviour is the result of the interaction between biological and environmental factors, and free choice does not affect the criminal justice system. The immediate threat of a deep-rooted society has to blame the victims of crimes against someone other than himself. Madness or unhealthyness is a shield for criminals who are accused and misled and commit crimes against the general public

INTRODUCTION

Mental disability is one of the disadvantages of criminal law, and it is a war between medicine and the profession of law. How to measure the test. According to recent trends, this is not a legal issue, but a real issue that is moving towards the perception of madness. A mentally ill person does not have free will and will not be disciplined for committing a crime.

The concept of this provision is that when committing a crime, such a person does not have full control over the mind, so it should not be punished, and since punishment has already been given, there is no need to be punished. This rule is dangerous because sometimes all criminals defend madness to avoid the death penalty, and on the other hand, a harmonious social society will fight against the peace of the psychotic.

READ  Is Property law exhaustive in nature?

HISTORY

It began when the British were ruled by Mc Naughton in 1843. Daniel Mac Naughton worked with the illusion of persecution, and killed Prime Minister Edmund Drummond, the Prime Minister’s personal assistant. Mc Naughton was mistaken for quitting business just before surgery and showed no signs of going crazy. The attorney demanded madness and the accused was arrested. In response to adverse public reactions, the House of Representatives decided to investigate the subject. Therefore, some questions were raised in the House of Representatives, which consisted of 14 judges. As we can see from the answers given, there are rules designed to determine crazy criminal liability and these rules are called McNaughton rules.

Critics believe that if you don’t distinguish the difference between a lifelong situation from a suspect who constitutes public risk and a suspect who does not constitute public risk, or a temporary mental problem. Finally, some people think that this rule is too easy for defendants with severe mental disorders to evade responsibility for crime, no matter how important the disability is in the case.

DEFENCE OF INSANITY (INDIAN LAW)

In Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), It states that “nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either doing wrong or contrary of law”. “Actus non facet ream miso menus sit rea” which means the act to be illegal in nature must be done with guilty mind. The defendant is not only important to prove the defendant’s guilt, but also the intention of the defendant to do something specific. Men’s income is also important to understand the seriousness of crime. However, in the absence of guilt, a statement about the crime will be subject to certain exceptions, such as strict liability.

READ  Daughters become equal coparceners

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF INSANITY

Since ancient times, Insanity has been considered a defense in criminal cases, especially in murder cases. People always thought everyone was the same until they got mad. People with mental illness are unable to obtain immunity in criminal cases and are responsible for showing psychosis when committing a crime. On the DK Jain bench, the man cut off his wife’s head by being mentally ill, and the court ruled that Article 84 provided an exemption for criminal prosecution as he was not mentally sound.

In the case of Hari sing god v/s State of Madhya Pradesh, in which clause (5) states that Article 84 defines liability for so-called mental disorder situations and there is no definition of mental disorder/Unsoundness in the IPC. If the accused is sentenced there are chances that he insanity may occur again.

Defendant in Kamala Bunia vs West Bengal was accused of murdering her husband on the axis. At the time of the incident, she was charged with madness and sued, and the defendant did not attempt to escape, and did not remove the initial responsibility for existence to eliminate weapon failures in prosecution. The defendant’s income at the time of the crime. Therefore, they benefited from Article 84 and turned out to be crazy if they committed the crime.

INCAPACITY TO KNOW RIGHT AND WRONG

Under section 84 the defendant did not have to be completely upset to screen out mental illness or conceal what he was doing wrong, and his reasoning was completely extinguished. What you have to decide is that even though the defendant knew the physical impact of the act, he did not know what he was doing was “wrong” or “illegal”. This section of chapter 84 introduces the concept of partial madness as a defense of criminal madness and makes new contributions to criminal law. However, in very rare cases, the defense will be defended by madness, and in this case, it is necessary to distinguish between “moral” and “legal” errors. In any crime, madness can undoubtedly be used as a defense, but few people defend madness except murder. Therefore, in some cases, this fine distinction may not be useful for your decision. Indian criminal law encourages the use of “wrong or illegal” in Article 84, and this debate can be foreseen.

READ  Rights of Accused Person

FUTURE DIRECTION

India’s forensic psychiatry does not have a formal graduation course. Few forensic psychiatric training and centre’s offer clinical services in forensic psychiatry. Given the current state of forensic psychiatry nationwide, researchers will establish a forensic mental training centre for mental health training. Psychiatrists in all hospitals and medical schools are evaluating the defences that distract attention and the adaptive development of madness. Systematic impact on criminal liability and reduced liability.

CONCLUSION

When understanding “psychiatric”, it is a good idea to fully interpret and define the term “mental insanity” to avoid various controversies. Section 84 of the Code should be amended to include partial defense to reduce the liability for maniac killings. This change should be made on an equal basis to the acceptance of the reduction of liability defense provided for the defense of the madness stipulated in the Criminal Code. As recognized by the criminal justice system, the scope of Article 84 should be expanded to include defense against automation under the defense of unhealthy ideas. It is a normal day for criminals to present false evidence during the period of corruption, and criminals will include pressure groups to fund political parties and conduct such criminal acts.

Author: Prakalp Shrivastava,
School of law, jagran lakecity university, bhopal (M.P)

Leave a Comment