Since many centuries, the liability of the insane for crime has always been one of the most controversial questions in the Criminal Law. In fact, it is very controversial because insanity itself is difficult to define, and the circumstances in which insanity can be used as exculpatory evidence are difficult to characterize.
Insanity defense appeared before so many centuries, and according to California Law review, Crotty (1924) stated “The insane offender has been dealt with from the earliest times in English law. Probably the earliest authority is Theodoric, Archbishop of Canterbury (668-690 A.D.).” (p. 110)
In 1581, a treatise in Britain stated “If a madman or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy do [kill a man], this is no felonious act for they cannot be said to have any understanding will.” In other words, those who are non compos mentis should not be found guilty because a person who is bereft of sanity lacks the intent required to perform a criminal act as a “moral agent”, i.e. mens rea is lacking in this case. Crotty (1924) reinforced this idea saying that:
[It is] where an insane person, during his madness, commits what would amount to murder or other felony; he is not punished, because of such insanity, with the awful punishment which the common law meted out to felons. The reasons assigned for this were: (i) that as the
…show more content…
In fact, according to O.Linder (n.d.), John W. Hinckley, Jr., attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan, on March 30, 1981. Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and was placed in a mental institution, St. Elizabeth's psychiatric hospital. However, the court’s decision resulted in public outcry, which urged Congress to enact legislation on the issue. In 1984, Congress passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 17 [1988]) to abolish the irresistible-impulse test from federal