Home Tests

Tests

Durham Test Explained

Durham Test Explained

The Durham Test allowed for an insanity defense in the event that the crime only happened because of the defendant’s mental illness. The Durham Test is also known as the Product Test. It bears the broadest definition of insanity out of the three original tests that allow an insanity defense. It was the first standard which allowed for the mentally ill to claim an insanity defense that came out of his or her illness.
The Durham Test greatly expanded the circumstances in which an insanity defense was permitted. The Durham Test was established in 1954, in the case of Durham v. United States. It was overturned by the 1972 case United States v. Brawner.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held responsibility for establishing the Durham Test. The Court sought to establish an understanding of a legal insanity defense that would be judged in the same method of negligence. The Court attempted to require experts called upon to establish an insanity defense to explain the reasons that they believed the defendant was insane, instead of just answering yes and no questions.
Criticism of the Durham Test was similar to the criticisms levied against the M’Naghten Rule and the Irresistible Impulse Test. Critics said that instead of experts answering if the defendant could distinguish right from wrong under the M’Naghten Rules the Durham Rule allowed the experts to answer if the crime happened because of the mental illnesses of the person claiming an insanity defense, allowing for a much broader defense based on insanity. Thus, the Durham Test was criticized as allowing too lax a determination of insanity.

An Overview of the Model Penal Code Test

An Overview of the Model Penal Code Test

The MPC Test, or Model Penal Code Test, is the current method of determining if a plea of insanity meets the legal requirements to find an individual not guilty by reason of insanity. The MPC Test came from a text of the same name published by the American Law Institute in 1962. 
 
 
The MPC Test established the idea of a reasonable person as the standard by which a plea of insanity could be examined.
 
 
The reasonable person test is a legal fiction, defined as an entity that (1) is always in control of its actions, (2) never consumes any item which would impair its ability to make a sound judgment, and (3) always contemplates the potential consequences that may arise from their actions before taking any action. 
 
 
The reasonable person standard represents the bare minimum set of criteria that a given person must satisfy to be considered sane and reasonable. If the actions of the defendant in a given case do not satisfy the reasonable person standard, then that defendant has grounds for establishing an insanity defense.
 
 
The reasonable person standard does not make any allowance for the mentally ill. This is one of the main criticisms leveled against it. It is not meant to measure the actions of a person entering a plea of insanity against the actions of the normal person. This is an important distinction to make because it requires rationality, not actions that would be undertaken by the majority of people.
 
 
The MPC definition of insanity draws elements from the M'Naghten Rule, the Irresistible Impulse Test, and the Durham Rule. It allows a plea of insanity under M'Naghten's standard by recognizing the ability or inability of the defendant to determine if their actions are legally right or wrong. 
 
 
The Irresistible Impulse Test is incorporated into the MPC Test by allowing not guilty pleas of insanity in the event the individual was unable to control him or herself. The Durham Test added allowance for a plea of insanity if there was a demonstrable history of mental illness or disease on the part of the defendant. 
 
 
Such defendants attempting to enter a plea of insanity are required to provide proof of a mental diagnosis affirming their mental illness.
 
 
Most states adopted statutes allowing defenses to claim a reduction of charges by reason of insanity after the MPC established the standards in 1982, when the American Law Institute revised the MPC. Although the MPC was once the standard by which the Federal Government allowed not guilty pleas by reason of insanity, this is no longer the case. Currently, most states no longer adhere to the standards of insanity laid out in the MPC.
 

How The M’Naghten Rules Molded the Insanity Plea

How The M'Naghten Rules Molded the Insanity Plea

The M'Naghten Rule was the first legal standard for determining the sanity or insanity of a defendant who was attempting to argue that he or she did not have the requisite level of sanity to be charged with a crime. The M'Naghten Rule shares a name with Daniel M'Naghten, who attempted to assassinate the British Prime Minister Robert Peel in 1843. The M'Naghten Rule was devised by a panel of judges whom the House of Lords asked to provide an opinion on the proper way to handle a defendant claiming to not be responsible for his actions.
 
 
The judges ruled that a person should be presumed to be sane unless proven otherwise, and that such sanity meant the defendant knew and was aware of the nature of the act being committed. In the event that the person was aware of his or her actions, the person could still be considered insane if he or she did not know the act was legally wrong, although ignorance of the law was not a permitted argument.
 
 
The reason the defendant undertook the insane action must be determined to be the result of a disease of the mind which could not have been foreseen, or if it could have been foreseen, was not preventable. A person suffering from an epileptic fit is not considered liable for the actions he or she commits while in the middle of that fit, but maintains standard levels of responsibility when not suffering the fit.
 
 
In contrast, a diabetic who took insulin, consumed alcohol, did not eat, and caused damage while suffering from a hypoglycemic incident would be liable for any damage he or she caused because he or she took actions which would not have occurred had he or she behaved in a way conducive to the treatment of his or her disease.
 
 
In order to determine if a defendant's insanity claim has merit, the M'Naghten Rule asks a simple two-part question: was the accused aware of his or her actions, and if so, did he or she know those actions were wrong?