The concept of responsibility connects with our most fundamental convictions about human nature and dignity and everyday experience of guilt and innocence and blame and punishment. There is an urgent need to initiate formal graduation course, setup Forensic Psychiatric Training and Clinical Services Providing Centers across the country to increase the manpower resources and to provide fair and speedy trail. Researchers present a model for evaluating a defendant's mental status examination and briefly discuss the legal standards and procedures for the assessment of insanity defense evaluations. This article focuses on the recent Supreme Court decision on insanity defense and standards employed in Indian court. It is hard to determine legal insanity, and even harder to successfully defend it in court.
The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by a “preponderance of the evidence” which is similar to a civil case. This means that just suffering from a mental disorder is not sufficient to prove insanity.
Insanity defense is a legal concept, not a clinical one (medical one). It is based on the assumption that at the time of the crime, the defendant was suffering from severe mental illness and therefore, was incapable of appreciating the nature of the crime and differentiating right from wrong behavior, hence making them not legally accountable for crime. Insanity defense is primarily used in criminal prosecutions.
0 kommentar(er)
