Is the Insanity Defence Being Abused?

It seems ridiculous that a code formed 163 years ago is still being drawn upon in today’s ever changing society. With the emergence of several medical and psychological breakthroughs regarding forensic/criminal psychology, the Queensland legal system is still using a rule formed when there was no access to diagnostic equipment and expert medical opinions, no previous precedents or access to statical data. This places a mentally ill defendant at a disadvantage from the start, having to prove their case without great importance being placed on various medical analytical equipment at their disposal. Rather than undertaking a series of psychological testing, the defence has to try to prove to the judge/jury that their client is in fact mentally ill based on a 163 year old ruling. Of course psychologists are consulted, and some testing may be done, but very little significance is placed on these outcomes rather it comes back to the M’Naughten ruling on whether or not the defendant was unaware of the act he was committing at the time.

It is not only the Queensland Criminal Code act which falls short on guiding principle regarding mental illness and mentally ill offenders. The following is a case from the Supreme Court of Tasmania:

Every person is presumed to be of sound mind and to have been of sound mind at any time which comes into question until the contrary is proved.

In R v Wilson [1997] QCA 244 (12 August 1997) The accused was on trial appealing a murder sentence. The defendent was a unbalanced man who abused not only the judge/jury in his original trial, but also hurled abuse at his lawyers and threatened to kill them. Mr Wilson had a history of depression for some years and spent 2 weeks in the Rosemount Psychiatric Hospital in 1994, and had been followed up there every 2-3 weeks since notably suffering from abnormal personality disorder with some evidence of brain damage. In the middle of his original trial, Mr Wilson was medically examined and the trial was stopped as the appellant's medical condition was referred to the Mental Health Tribunal, which deemed him fit to stand trial. He was then convicted of murder. At the appeal a psychologist found that he was not labouring under such a defect at the time, to not know the nature of his act. The appeal was dismissed. This defendant had a past history of mental illness, yet the jury deemed him of responsible for his act as he was aware of ramifications of his actions at the time. He was suffering severe depression with evidence of brain damage and a clinical diagnosis of abnormal personality disorder yet they declared him of sound mind. Without guidelines to the code stating what is/isn’t a mental illness and what should be covered, offenders such as Wilson are slipping thro

Some topics in this essay:
Criminal Code, Guilt Punishment, Health Act, Legal System, Code Act, Health Tribunal, Eskil Nilsson, Prime Ministers, Martin Bryant’s, System Wallace, mental illness, legal system, queensland legal system, queensland legal, insanity defence, mentally ill, mens rea, criminal code, sound mind, ill offenders, mentally ill offenders, queensland criminal code, code act, criminal code act, mental health act,