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.
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.
The idea of insanity in English law dates from 1324, when the Statute de Praerogativa Regis allowed the King to take the lands of "idiots and lunatics." The early law used various words, including "idiot", "fool" and "sot" to refer to those who had been insane since birth, [2] and "lunatic" for those who had later become insane, or were insane with some lucid intervals. [3]
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 ...
Its characters are so iconic, and so constantly quoted, that Shelton returned to Durham’s ballpark on the movie’s 30th anniversary and met a family that had relocated solely out of “Bull ...
(1986) 12 Journal of Medical Ethics 18. Griew, E, The Future of Diminished Responsibility, (1988) CLR 75. Scottish Law Commission. Discussion Paper on Insanity and Diminished Responsibility. Discussion Paper No 122. (2003) Whelan, D, Mental Health Law and Practice: Civil and Criminal Aspects (Dublin: Thomson Round Hall, 2009)