United Arab Emirates: The Insanity Plea

Last Updated: 26 July 2019
Article by STA Law Firm
Most Read Contributor in United Arab Emirates, August 2019

Introduction

Insanity is a highly interesting topic when it comes to the law, and at the same time, is a topic which demands the utmost thought and care. Mental health, in general, is a topic that is consistently undergoing further research due to how it impacts people's lives. The concept of the insanity plea is one which has existed for some time now, though it most commonly comes up and is used in the United States.

While the use of the plea is not too common in the real world, it is often a well-discussed topic among lawmakers and the ordinary layman. It has entered into pop culture and receives mention in TV shows, books and movies with one of the most famous and popular being 'One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest'. The premise of the film is far more substantial than merely the concept of the insanity plea, though it is a crucial moment.

The original concept of the insanity plea only ever arises in criminal cases, and the purpose of the defence is to ensure the protection and fair treatment of those who are mentally unstable and not in a position to be held liable for their actions. Punishing one who falls under the category of insane is ethically wrong, and the laws that are in place seek to deliver civil justice.

In this article, the ideas and reasons, the laws and regulations and impacts of the insanity plea shall all receive discussion from the perspective of the nation that most often sees its use and has the most experience with it — the United States of America.

The History of the Insanity Plea

Only a few hundred years ago, insanity was generally not an excuse that could be used to defend one's self in the courts. People were punished severely and solely based on crimes committed. Of course, many things have changed and received alterations since then. There is now a far greater reliance on evidence, and the methods of obtaining evidence are far more reliable. Our scientific and medical understanding has also significantly improved since then, though individuals have existed through time who have sought to introduce. In ancient Rome and Greece, such concepts did appear, though there was no consistent way to identify when an individual was truthful, and further identifying and diagnosing the specific mental issue.

Many centuries later than this, examples such as Edward II of England, who reigned in the early 14th century exist. Edward II specified that a person might fall under the category of insane if they should possess the mental capacity of a 'wild beast'; this is very different from the attitude in the modern world where many complex factors require consideration, and a person's wellbeing and health is an area that receives more considerable thought.

More specific to the US, the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution prevents the use of excessive bail, fines and cruel and unusual punishments. The critical aspect of the Eighth Amendment to keep in mind here is that of cruel or unusual punishments. At the time, this was primarily intended to ensure that the penalties were not excessive when compared to the crime, and it also outlawed specific methods used in the past in executions. For example, drawing and quartering, disembowelling and burning at the stake were entirely forbidden and considered inhuman. Specific punishments were also prohibited depending on the crime such as painful labour and revocation of citizenship.

It is important to note that insanity received no explicit mention within the Eighth Amendment. With a Common Law system in place in the US, it should be remembered and borne in mind that cases and their judgements carry significant weight proceeding into the future and they often almost carry as much importance as the legislation themselves. In many cases, aspects of the laws are expanded upon and clarified, and case judgements bind courts of lower influence such as the courts of first instance. Higher courts though are not bound by the decisions of courts beneath them, and so Supreme Court decisions are practically law unless a future Supreme Court decision overrules it.

This particular topic, the insanity plea, and the Eighth Amendment protection for those deemed insane primarily came about as a result of the case of Ford v Wainwright, 477 US 399 (1986). While insanity was generally a valid excuse to avoid punishment under common law, the situation, as mentioned earlier solidified its position in the US. In this case, Alvin Bernard Ford was convicted of murder in the year of 1974. He was sentenced to death and was left on hold on death row for many years. During his time on death row, he began to experience mental health issues, and by 1982, it had diminished to such a point that he had what was consequently identified as paranoid schizophrenia.

He was looked at by multiple psychiatrists and specialists who determined that there were undoubtedly severe issues at play. Mr Ford proceeded to sue Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, and he won the case. The judges had a few points which they used to demonstrate the reason for their judgement. One of the reasons provided shows the earlier point concerning societal progression. The modern developed world is a more humane and considerate place in general than ever before, and not only are the punishments less brutal, but the people under judgement are also under a higher and more informed level of scrutiny — as such, punishing an insane person would fall under the category of immoral and unethical.

Further to this, the court agreed that the purpose of punishments in criminal cases is to prevent and limit others from performing the same actions in the future. Under this definition, criminal law, at least in part, exists as a deterrent to potential criminals and the punishments themselves are used as an example to others. In this case, then, sentencing an insane individual to death would not help to further this cause as a person with mental disabilities might not possess the understanding of the situation to learn from previous cases or understand the consequences of their actions.

This case was not the first in which insanity was successfully used as an excuse for crimes, though it is a crucial one as it led to the insanity plea falling within the umbrella of the Eighth Amendment, thus causing it to be a fundamental right.

The US now has a set system in place which allows them to determine whether a person is genuinely of appropriate mental instability to warrant their plea. There are a few tests that can and are to be conducted, and there is also a more solid procedure in place to follow carefully and consistently, and these will receive discussion now.

The Modern Day Insanity Plea

In the US Federal Courts, every individual can plead insanity as a defence for their crimes except in individual states including Idaho, Montana, Kansas and Utah. However, even in these states, if an individual is found to be insane, they cannot receive the same punishments as mentally healthy people; this may sound a little confusing, but it merely exists to ensure ethical and fair judgements.

Firstly, there is the M'Naghten Test. This test arose based on the 1843 Scottish case of Daniel M'Naghten in which he had murdered the secretary of the Prime Minister. This act was performed in an attempt to assassinate the Prime Minister who the defendant believed to be responsible for certain negative occurrences in their life which were in actuality, utterly unrelated to the Prime Minister. Nine witnesses arose and claimed that M'Naghten was insane and should, therefore, receive fair treatment with this fact considered, and the jury acquitted him on the grounds of insanity. From here it was decided by the House of Lords that a court should question the defendant in an attempt to discover if either they did not know the action they performed was wrong or did not understand the nature of the act. If the questioning resulted in either of these two situations being met, the defendant could be found not guilty based on insanity.

Another of the critical tests is the Durham/New Hampshire Test. The Test arose through the case of Durham v United States case of 1954; this is a far broader test than the previous one and considers a 'but for' situation. The court is required to find out whether the action performed occurred as a result of the mental illness and but for that illness, it would not have taken place. In a way, this test is far less lenient than the previous one as a connection and causation must be drawn between the act and the mental illness.

Finally, there is the Model Penal Code Act; this was initially introduced after the previous two mentioned cases and was, in a way, a response to both. It saw the Durham/New Hampshire Test as being too lenient and was seeking to update the older M'Naghten Test. It acted as a compromise between these tests and fixed some of their shortcomings.

While the tests are a critical part of the system judging insanity in the US, another vital area to keep in mind revolves around the burden of proof. There was a time, before the introduction of the Insanity Defence Reform Act of 1984, where the burden of proof lay upon the prosecutors. If a defendant pleaded insanity, the prosecutors would have to prove to the jury and court that they were not so. However, issues may arise alongside this, such as the fact that it is easier to prove insanity through psychological testing rather than disprove it through the same.

Another fact to consider is that in a criminal case, a crime has taken place and a court is seeking justice. They have the individual who committed the crime present and accepting of the fact that they performed the act. With the severe nature of the matter at hand, it would require additional time and effort from the prosecutors to disprove the insanity of the person.

Finally, consider also that it is the defendants who are using insanity as their key defence. They are the party who brings forward the claim, and so it would make logical sense that the burden should lay with them to prove it is, in fact, present and crucial to the matter at hand.

Conclusion

The insanity plea requires significant consideration, and it usually receives this appropriately in the modern world. In a way, it shows just how significantly we have progressed as a civilisation compared to where we not only were but also compared to the rest of nature. Our scientific and medical understanding of the mind is primitive in comparison to the rest of the body; we know that much. The mind can be complicated, and when issues arise involving it, the repercussions and outcomes can vary substantially. The general agreement is that people who suffer from such problems require help and assistance rather than punishment.

In the US, punishment to the mentally ill for criminal activities, if the illness is proven to be of high enough impact on their mind and actions, is deemed as cruel. No good arises through sentences that severely punish, as punishments look to set examples to prevent repeats by the same person or similar people in the future. However, if one does not even have full control of their mind and proper understanding of their actions and the significance in the grand scheme of things, there is no use in severe punishments such as the death penalty.

All in all, looking back through history, the position we are currently in does indeed seem to find justice under all cases. The system is not perfect and likely never can be, though almost everyone can agree that we are on the correct and appropriate path.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions