PhD Scholar, Department of Environmental Sciences, Kinnaird College for Women, Lahore.

Abstract

This paper explores the historical and modern perspectives of the insanity defense within criminal law. It traces the evolution of the insanity defense from ancient legal codes to contemporary standards, focusing on key historical developments such as the M'Naghten Rule and the Durham Rule. The paper highlights how societal attitudes towards mental illness have influenced legal interpretations of insanity and the criteria for excusing criminal responsibility. The M'Naghten Rule, established in the 19th century, set a precedent by requiring proof that a defendant could not understand the nature of their actions due to mental illness. In contrast, the Durham Rule emphasized the relationship between mental illness and criminal behavior but faced criticism for its vagueness. The Model Penal Code introduced a more nuanced approach, incorporating cognitive and volitional components to define insanity. Contemporary applications of the insanity defense demonstrate its complexity, as jurisdictions vary in their standards. The paper discusses the ongoing debates about fairness, justice, and the impact of the insanity defense on marginalized communities. Ultimately, it advocates for a more informed understanding of mental health in legal contexts, emphasizing the need for reform to ensure equitable treatment of defendants with mental health issues.

Keywords: Insanity defense, Criminal law, M'Naghten Rule, Durham Rule, Model Penal Code, Mental illness, Legal standards, Historical perspectives