|
The M'Naghten rules (pronounced, and sometimes spelled, McNaughton) were a reaction to the acquittal in 1843 of Daniel M'Naghten on the charge of murdering Edward Drummond, whom M'Naghten had mistaken for British Prime Minister Robert Peel.〔''M’Naghten’s Case'' () All ER Rep 229〕 M'Naghten fired a pistol at the back of Peel's secretary, Edward Drummond, who died five days later. The House of Lords asked a panel of judges, presided over by Sir Nicolas Conyngham Tindal, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, a series of hypothetical questions about the defence of insanity. The principles expounded by this panel have come to be known as the ''M'Naghten Rules'', though they have gained any status only by usage in the common law and M'Naghten himself would have been found guilty if they had been applied at his trial.〔Carl Elliott, ''The rules of insanity: moral responsibility and the mentally ill offender'', SUNY Press, 1996, ISBN 0-7914-2951-2, p.10〕〔Michael T. Molan, Mike Molan, Duncan Bloy, Denis Lanser, ''Modern criminal law'' (5 ed), Routledge Cavendish, 2003, ISBN 1-85941-807-4, p.352〕 The rules so formulated as ''M'Naghten's Case'' 1843 10 C & F 200 have been a standard test for criminal liability in relation to mentally disordered defendants in common law jurisdictions ever since, with some minor adjustments. When the tests set out by the Rules are satisfied, the accused may be adjudged "not guilty by reason of insanity" or "guilty but insane" and the sentence may be a mandatory or discretionary (but usually indeterminate) period of treatment in a secure hospital facility, or otherwise at the discretion of the court (depending on the country and the offence charged) instead of a punitive disposal. 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.〔http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=13&Chapter=157&Section=04802〕 Not all of these jurisdictions still use the M'Naghten Rules. ==Historical development== There are various justifications for the exemption of the insane from criminal responsibility. When mental incapacity is successfully raised as a defence in a criminal trial it absolves a defendant from liability: it applies public policies in relation to criminal responsibility by applying a rationale of compassion, accepting that it is morally wrong to punish a person if that person is deprived permanently or temporarily of the capacity to form a necessary mental intent that the definition of a crime requires. Punishment of the obviously mentally ill by the state may undermine public confidence in the penal system. A utilitarian and humanitarian approach suggests that the interests of society are better served by treatment of the illness rather than punishment of the individual. Historically, insanity was seen as grounds for leniency. In pre-Norman times in England there was no distinct criminal code – a murderer could pay compensation to the victim's family under the principle of "buy off the spear or bear it". The insane person's family were expected to pay any compensation and look after. In Norman times insanity was not seen as a defence in itself but a special circumstance in which the jury would deliver a guilty verdict and refer the defendant to the King for a pardon〔Walker, N. (1968). Crime and Insanity in England:The Historical Perspective. vol.1, Edinburgh University Press; Stephen, History of Criminal Law, 151; 2 Pollock & Maitland, History of English Law, 480〕 :''...eo quod sensu carent et ratione, non magis quam brutum animal iniuriam facere possunt nec feloniam, cum non multum distent a brutis, secundum quod videri poterit in minore, qui si alium interficeret in minori ætate, iudicium non sustineret.'' :...since they are without sense and reason and can no more commit a tort or a felony than a brute animal, since they are not far removed from brutes, as is evident in the case of a minor, for if he should kill another while under age he would not suffer judgment.〔(Bracton, ''On the Laws and Customs of England'' II.424.24–27 (1210) )〕 In ''R v Arnold'' 1724 16 How St. Tr. 765, the test for insanity was expressed in the following terms By modern legal and medical standards, this is a simplistic test. The next major advance occurred in ''Hadfield's Trial'' 1800 27 How St. Tr. 765 in which the court decided that a crime committed under some delusion would be excused only if it would have been excusable had the delusion been true. This would deal with the situation, for example, when the accused imagines he is cutting through a loaf of bread, whereas in fact he is cutting through a person's neck. Each jurisdiction may have its own standards of the insanity defense. More than one standard can be applied to any case based on multiple jurisdictions. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「M'Naghten rules」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|