It is also known as the M"Naghten Rule of 1843. The courts will not hold an insane person responsible for any criminal conduct if the act is a result of any mental disorder or defect (Gado 2). If the accused is guilty or not guilty, the court's agreement of insanity says the accused was unable to appreciate the nature or the wrongfulness of criminal act and its results. Deliberate intentions are an essential to most offenses, however an insane person is not capable of forming conscious intent. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense; the person also has the task of proving the defense of insanity by clear and presenting evidence. The defendant must prove that the accuser was not capable of willfully committing the crime.
In a court, the concept of insanity is legal matter rather than psychological matter. The insanity plea is used in situations where the defendant is judged to be incapable of knowing right from wrong because of a mental disorder or defect. Hence, psychologists examine individuals and testify in court, but the final decision is a legal matter. The court based on legal precedent makes a final decision. Therefore, medical and legal experts are will not agree over the insanity plead as a legitimate defense. The insanity plead has been taken out of context or used as an excuse for criminal acts. In some legal cases, insanity is used as a means to avoid prosecution. Normally, if the accused is judged insane, he or she is committed to a mental hospital or institution until cured. Later, the accused can return to society if judged sane, mostly after only serving a light sentence. One proposal is to replace the verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity with the verdict of guilty but mentally ill. Individuals found guilty but mentally ill would be given the proper therapy to treat their mental disorders. Once treatment has cured the mental disorder or defect, the accused would complete their sentences in a prison.
