A Critical Comparative Study Of The Insanity Defence
- IJLLR Journal
- 2 hours ago
- 1 min read
Aakriti Srivastava, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
INTRODUCTION
The insanity defence is claimed in only one in a hundred cases in the United States and out of those successful in only twenty-five per cent.1 A similar scenario can be seen in criminal justice systems around the world, making it a front-running contender for the title of the least used defence. Yet the insanity defence gets significantly greater scrutiny from both academia and society. One significant factor is that the insanity defence has been invoked, either successfully or unsuccessfully, in numerous high-profile cases that have captured the public's attention and sparked debates around mental health and justice.
Lord Onslow,2 King George III,3 Queen Victoria,4 Edward Drummond (mistaken for Sir Robert Peel)5, President Garfield (assassinated) 6 and President Regan7 were public dignitaries who have the common experience that they were shot at and the assailant claimed insanity as a legal excuse. Such incidents have led to public outrage and attention to the defence and made it one of the most contentious defences that still exist in major criminal justice systems around the world.
It is a widely acknowledged fact the defence of insanity in the present form is inadequate. In this article, we will conduct a critical study into the test for insanity defence as is present in India with a reference to practices and experiences prevalent in other jurisdictions and critically analyse what changes could be made to the present legal scenario to achieve the aim of justice.
