Question

Insanity is among the excuses recognized by law. However, throughout history the legal definition of insanity has changed. Do you think these changes have made its application more effective? Why or why not? How does the insanity defense differ from diminished capacity.

Answer 1

The first case of not-guilty by reason of insanity was presented in the court in the year of 1800/ This man won the case. It was determined that he did not know what he was doing during a crime in which he killed someone. This is still true today but they have added that the person must not be able to demarcate between right and wrong due to some mental disability.

The insanity plea has evolved over the years. It had included such defenses as the irresistible impulse where the person just could not stop doing from doing a wrong thing. These additional defenses have made the application more effective by narrowing the conditions and thereby aiding the jury in determining guilt or innocence. The Durham rule where the jury must be able to see that the criminal activity that took place was a result of the accused mental deficiency is also present now.

Difference between an insanity defense and diminished capacity: The main difference is that in an insanity defense, the suspect can be found non-guilty, while in diminished capacity defense recognition is done through mental condition, although insufficient to exonerate, may be relevant to specific mental evidence of mental abnormality in an effort to reduce first-degree murder to second degree murder.