Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A Durham rule, product test, or product defect rule is a rule in a criminal case by which a jury may determine a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity because a criminal act was the product of a mental disease. Examples in which such rules were articulated in common law include State v. Pike (1870) and Durham v. United States (1954).
Durham v. United States, 214 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1954), [1] is a criminal case articulating what became known as the Durham rule for juries to find a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity: "an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect."
The test has more lenient guidelines for the insanity defense, but it addressed the issue of convicting mentally ill defendants, which was allowed under the M'Naghten Rule. [12] However, the Durham standard drew much criticism because of its expansive definition of legal insanity. It was abandoned in the 1970s, after the case of United States v.
State v. Pike, 49 N.H. 399 (1870), is a criminal case which articulated a product test for an insanity defense. [1] The court in Durham v. United States used it as the basis for what came to be known as the Durham rule. [1]
The M'Naghten/McNaugton rule (1843) defines insanity as the individual not understanding the nature and quality of his or her acts or that these acts were wrong due to a mental disease or defect. This is also referred to as the cognitive capacity test. Meanwhile, the Durham Test (established in Durham v.
1867 – In 1867, the State of Illinois passed a "Bill for the Protection of Personal Liberty" which guaranteed all people accused of insanity, including wives, had the right to a public hearing. [9] 1869 – State v. Pike, 49 N.h. 399 (1869), is a criminal case which articulated a product test for an insanity defense. [10] The court in Durham v
THE FINAL SCENE. 1993. A clearing in the woods near Chicago, sun shining, puffy clouds. Robert Downey Jr., twenty-seven years old, just a few months past his Best Actor Academy Award nomination ...
The House of Lords delivered the following exposition of the rules: . the jurors ought to be told in all cases that every 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 to their satisfaction; and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the ...