The Insanity Defense in Retreat

lieved that Peel's Tory Party was persecuting him; he was found guilty by reason of insanity. The law lords were asked to clarify grounds of defense and they ruled that no person was to be found guilty if at time of criminal act the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, as not to know nature and quality of act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong. As psychiatry emerged in nineteenth century, critics of McNaughtan asserted that rule failed to acknowledge ways in which psychological factors could limit capacity for free will. Indeed, some, such as James Pritchard, argued that an apparently rational individual could suffer from moral insanity, for which inability to control criminal impulses was only symptom of abnormality. Despite these insistent challenges to rigidity of traditional criminal law

Criminology · Insanity · Insanity defense · Psychiatry · Psychoanalysis · Historical and Scientific Studies · Historical Psychiatry and Medical Practices · Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse · Psychology

• Abolition of the Insanity Plea in Idaho

  Open Access•Gilbert Geis, Robert F Meier•The Annals of the American…•1985

  Add to list