Is claiming insanity a loophole for criminals? My opinion on this subject is heavily based on the evidence that I have gathered from my research and previous cases that are relevant to the defence of insanity. I believe that in some cases the defence of insanity can be used as a loophole for criminals to get out of conviction free from the crimes that they have committed. However, since there is a lot of social stigma facing the word insanity, many criminals do not claim this defence even if they are eligible to do so.
Before I talk about whether or not insanity is a loophole for criminals, I first need to talk about the definition of insanity and the moral issues surrounding the defence of insanity.
Insanity is a legal definition, not a medical one, however, insanity refers to the state of the mind that is a medical problem. With this being said, it doesn`t seem fair to the defendant to have their state of mind judged by a jury and legal experts and not by a medical expert; a medical expert is likely to be more knowledgeable in this area and so would be better for judging whether or not the defendant does indeed prove to be insane.
Since the definition of insanity was set out by the M`Naghten rules in 1843, it has become rather outdated and should therefore be updated with a newer and more modern definition, perhaps this would remove a lot of the social stigma around the word 'insanity' and the defence of insanity.
There are several legislations that cover the defence of insanity and need to be followed when deciding whether the defendant is unfit to plead or insane at either the time of the offence or at the time of the trial. These legislations include:
Section 2 of the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883: is a special verdict where the defendant is found not guilty due to reasoning of insanity (the defendant must be insane at the time of the offence or at the time the omission was made).
Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964: this applies where a special verdict has returned that the accused is not guilty due to the reason of insanity, or findings have been made that the accused is under a disability and that they did the act or made the omission charged against them.
Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964: this applies where on the trial of a person the question arises, be this at the instance of the defence or otherwise, whether the accused is under a disability. The court may postpone consideration of the question of fitness to be tried until any time up to the opening of the case for the defence.
With these legislations in place it is easy to see that even if the defendant does claim insanity, there are several things that must be tested and confirmed before the defence of insanity can be allowed. In the case of insanity before trial, there needs to be confirmation from two doctors about the offender`s state of mind. The Home Secretary is also allowed to have them detained in a mental institution with or without any restrictions. In the case of the defendant being unfit to plead, a special jury is empanelled to decide whether or not the defendant is indeed unfit to plead. A case linked to this is R v Pritchard 1836. In this case, the defendant was deaf and mute and so a test was set forward to determine whether or not the defendant was fit to plead.
All in all, the defence of insanity isn`t all bad since there has been an improvement from when it was first created. A wider range of options has been added to provide justice for people eligible to use this defence but not medically classed as insane, people such as diabetics or epileptics. These things include a hospital order, with or without restrictions, a supervision order or absolute discharge of the defendant.