M’naghten Rule, Durham Test

M’Naghten Rule, Durham Test
And Guilty but, Mentally Ill
Criminal Law

In this paper it will explain what the M’Nagten rule is and that the rule created a presumption of sanity, unless the defense proved at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.   From there it will explain what Durham test is and that a person who is accused is not corruptly constrained if his/her illegitimate action was the effect of mental disease or mental unsoundness. Almost ending with explaining what guilty but mentally ill is and what it confirms that both a customary criminal consent and psychiatric analysis for the mentally ill offenders who needed to be found not convicted by logic of neurosis.   Lastly this paper will look into a client who raised the insanity defense; it would be of their best interest to go with M’Naghten rule; and it will explain the reasoning.

Sometimes seriously violent crimes are committed by those who have mental defects. As a society, the United States has consistently required defendants to understand the nature of what they have done before assigning criminal liability. A person who commits a crime in one state may be found innocent in another state; they may be found not guilty by reason of insanity, and in a third state they may be found guilty based on the same facts. The challenge for a paralegal professional is to understand that the standard varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Explain the differences between the M'Naghten rule, the Durham test, and guilty but mentally ill.   According to Cornell University Law School, "The M'Naghten rule" was a standard to be applied by the jury, after hearing medical testimony from prosecution and defense experts. The rule created a presumption of sanity, unless the defense proved "at the...