One of the first instance within the Western Legal
Tradition where insanity was accepted as a defence to criminal liability can be found in the case of Daniel M'Naughten was accused of the 1843 killing of Edward Drummond, the secretary of British Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel. By all accounts, M'Naughten had intended to kill Peel, but because he was suffering from mental disorganization, he shot Drummond instead, mistaking him for Peel. At his trial teh defense presented information to show that M'Naughten was suffering from delusions, including the belief that Peel's political party was, in some vague way, persecuting him.
The M'Naughten Rule
The Defenition of M'Naghten Rule
a definition of criminal responsibility formulated in 1843 by English judges questioned by the House of Lords as a result of the acquittal of Daniel M'Naghten on grounds of insanity. It holds that “to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.”
How did the M'Naughten Rule fit in the criminal justice system?
The M'Naughten Rule:
The M'Naghten rule is a test for criminal insanity. Under the M'Naghten rule, a criminal defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if, at the time of the alleged criminal act, the defendant was so deranged that she did not know the nature or quality of her actions or, if she knew the nature and quality of her actions, she was so deranged that she did not know that what she was doing was wrong.