THE FUTURE OF THE INSANITY DEFENSE: INCORPORATING MODERN PSYCHIATRIC UNDERSTANDING INTO LEGAL FRAMEWORKS

Rex v. Arnold (1724) states that to avail the defense of insanity, the defense must hold itself to the statement, “A man must be totally deprived of his understanding and memory, so as not to know what he is doing, no more than an infant, a brute, or a wild beast.” Thus, the insanity defense was established in the early eighteenth century, based on the ‘wild beast’ rules. In the following centuries, developing an understanding of psychology led to many other standards and tests being established, like the M'Naghten rules, the “Irresistible Impulse” test, the Durham test, the Modern Penal Code test, etc. They all held vastly different definitions of legal insanity, influenced by variables like the defendant’s cognizant ability to distinguish right from wrong and their volitional ability to control their actions. The theory of free will has also raised questions on the legal assessment of the defendant’s legal responsibility. The inadequacy of current legal frameworks in addressing mental illness has led me to an examination of the historical evolution of legal tests for insanity, highlighting discrepancies between legal definitions and psychiatric understanding of mental illness pertaining to the ongoing struggle in balancing the court’s duty to the defendants in offering them fair treatment with their duty to ensure public safety.