The M’Naghten Rule

From Wikipedia:

“…The insanity defence is recognized in Australia, Canada, England and Wales, Hong Kong, India, the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and most U.S. states with the exception of Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Utah, and Vermont but not all of these jurisdictions still use the M’Naghten Rules. States that disallow the insanity defence still allow defendants to demonstrate that they are not capable of forming intent to commit a crime as a result of mental illness.

…The insanity defense article has a number of alternative tests that have been used at different times and places. As one example, the ALI test replaced the M’Naughten rule in many parts of the United States for many years until the 1980s; when in the aftermath of John Hinckley shooting President Ronald Reagan many ALI states returned to a variation of M’Naughten.

The M’Naghten rules are at the focus of John Grisham’s legal thriller A Time to Kill. The M’Naghten rules apply in the US State of Mississippi, where the plot is set, and using them is the only way for the lawyer protagonist to save his client.”

From: The Law Commission’s Criminal Liability Insanity and Automatism: a Discussion Paper (23 July 2013):

“…Terms like “insanity” and “disease of the mind” are not medical terms, but outdated legal terms. There have been calls for the M’Naghten Rules to be brought into line with modern medical knowledge for at least 60 years, and those calls were echoed by the responses to the Scoping Paper. As Dr James Reed (a consultant forensic psychiatrist) wrote in response to the Scoping Paper: “the present test does not really relate in any meaningful way to the practice of psychiatry. Therefore diversions into discussions about the M’Naghten rules are not very helpful in conveying an understanding of the clinical situation to the court”. Many other jurisdictions have met these concerns by recently reforming their insanity test by legislation (Scotland in 2010, Ireland in 2006) or at common law (Canada, Australia).

(4) The label “insanity” is stigmatising and inaccurate

52 The very name of the defence is off-putting to many people, and this was something that respondents to the Scoping Paper commented on. Legal representatives sometimes do not want to suggest to their clients that the insanity defence might be relevant to their case. Even worse, as we explain above, the broad interpretation of the term “disease of the mind” results in people with epilepsy, diabetes, and others with conditions that would not be generally described as mental disorders being classified as “insane”. Those people might understandably be reluctant to plead the defence.

53 However, there is an argument that with mental illness, whatever label is chosen, stigma will persist. Some argue that the stigma that attaches to “the insane”, though real and regrettable, attaches more to mental disorder in general rather than to the specific word. Professor Cheryl Thomas is currently undertaking work for us on the jury and on public attitudes to mental disorder and to crime and dangerousness so we hope to learn more about public attitudes in this respect…”

T V Asokan, of the Institute of Mental Health, Chennai, India, wrote in the Indian Journal of Psychiatry of 2007:

“Daniel McNaughton was the son of a Glasgow wood turner. He was harboring a delusion that there was a conspiracy against him, and he perceived harassment by the spies sent by Catholic priests with the help of Jesuits and Tories.

The following was the revelation by McNaughton during interrogation in Bowstreet police station. “The Tories in my native city have compelled me to do this. They followed me to France, into Scotland and all over to England. In fact, they follow me wherever I go… They have accused me of crimes of which I am not guilty; they do everything in their power to harass and persecute me. In fact they wish to murder me.”

The Commissioner of Police was aware of McNaughton’s condition for 18 months before the shooting incident. Two years before the shooting incident, McNaughton asked him to put a full stop to the persecution and later reminded him to apply to the Sheriff. His delusions were directed against the Tories, and he decided to kill the Tory Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel.

On 20th June 1843 Edward Drummond, the Private Secretary of Sir Robert Peel, was coming out of the Prime Minister’s residence and McNaughton mistook him for Peel. He followed him out of Whiteall Garden and in Parliament Street; and in front of numerous spectators, he shot him in the back and he died five days later.

McNaughton was arrested by a constable who had witnessed the incident and was taken to BowStreet police station. At the inquest in BowStreet, the verdict was willful murder and McNaughton was indicted.

Dr. Edward Thomas Monro in Bethlem Hospital examined McNaughton for the defense at NewGate prison. Sir Alexander Morrison, Dr. A. J. Sutherland (Physician, Sir Luke’s Hospital) and Mr. William McClure (Harley Street Surgeon) were present during the examination of McNaughton. During subsequent examinations by Monro, Dr. Hutcheson (Physician to Royal Asylum) and Dr. Crawford (Glasgow) were present. Mr. Aston Key of Guy’s Hospital; and Dr. Philips, Surgeon and Lecturer at the West Minister’s Hospital, had examined McNaughton and gave evidence at the trial.

Dr. Forbes Benignus Winslow, an authority in insanity defense, was called. (He did not examine McNaughton and remained as a spectator throughout the trial – a controversy – and House of Lords questioned him about this.)

During the trial, Alexander Cockburn (counsel for defense), asked Dr. Monro whether the delusions of McNaughton were real or assumed. Dr. Monro confirmed that the delusions were real and considered that the killing was committed under a delusion and McNaughton carried out of an idea which had haunted him for years. All others who gave evidence confirmed that McNaughton was insane. Alexander Cockburn had made extensive and excessive use of Isaac Ray’s Treatise on the Medical Jurisprudence of Insanity. Cockburn quoted extensively from the book, which rejected traditional views of the insanity defense based on the defendant’s ability to distinguish right from wrong in favor of causation. When Dr. Forbes Benignus Winslow and Dr. Philips (both appeared for the Crown) concurred with the opinions of other doctors called by defense, the case collapsed. Terms like homicidal monomania and partial delusion were discussed during the trial, and the foreman jury without the retiring jury returned a verdict of insanity.

McNaughton was acquitted of murder; and considering insanity, he was forcibly institutionalized for the rest of his life under Criminal Lunatics Act 1800. He was first remanded to Bethlem Royal Hospital (stayed there for 20 years); and in 1864 he was transferred to Bradmoor Asylum, and he died on 3rd May 1865 at the age of 52. The establishment and the press protested the verdict. Queen Victoria was displeased to a greater extent and wrote to Sir Robert Peel for a wider interpretation of the verdict.

On 6th March 1843, there was a discussion in the House of Lords, and Lord Chancellor put five questions to a panel of His Majesty’s judges. The five questions were replied on 19th June 1843, and they were construed as McNaughton’s rules. The following are the main points of McNaughton’s rules:

1Every man is to be presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved.

2An insane person is punishable “if he knows” at the time of crime.

3To establish a defense on insanity, the accused, by defect of reason or disease of mind, is not in a position to know the nature and consequences.

4The insane person must be considered in the same situation as to responsibility as if the facts with respect to which the delusion exists were real.

5It was the jury’s role to decide whether the defendant was insane.

McNaughton’s rules stressed on “understandability of right and wrong” and “intellectual” rather than a moral or affective definition dominated in its formulation. Lack of control and irresistible drives or impulses were neglected. In essence, it was the “test of knowing” or “test of right and wrong.” If McNaughton’s rules had been applied to McNaughton at the time of trial, he could not have been found guilty on the grounds of insanity.

The spellings for his name vary in many instances, but hospital records and court documents support the spelling “McNaughton”.

Section 84 IPC embodies McNaughton rules as follows: “Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to the law.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s