About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


9 Law & Psychol. Rev. 77 (1985)
Insanity Defenses: From the Jurors' Perspective

handle is hein.journals/lpsyr9 and id is 79 raw text is: Insanity Defenses: From the Jurors' Perspective Norman J. Finkel*, Ray Shaw**, Susan Bercawt and Juliann Kochtt The historical debate regarding insanity defenses, a debate which has been rekindled and inflamed in the current smolderings of Hinck- ley, has long been marked by contention, confusion, and change.' When Judge Tracy formulated the wild beast test of insanity in Rex v. Arnold in 1723, this British judge was following Lord Coke's line of reasoning.2 Under this test, a man would be relieved of criminal respon- sibility if he doth not know what he is doing, no more than ... a wild beast.3 Lord Coke's position of total insanity was not by any means the last word. Lord Hale acknowledged that partial insanity, existed though he was careful not to excuse it.' A Scottish contem- porary of Hale's, Sir George MacKenzie went even further when he argued, by the rule of proportion, that partial insanity should lessen the punishment.5 While the wild beast test survived more than 100 years of legal stalking, its reign was by no means peaceful. When James Hadfield fired his pistol at King George III and missed, his legal counsel, the brilliant Lord Erskine, hit the mark when he called the notion of total insanity an illusion and argued that a person could be absolutely mad for a day.6 Hadfield was acquitted and the wild beast staggered. Then came M'Naghten's case.8 M'Naughten's shot, which was * Assistant Professor of Psychology and Director of Graduate Program, Georgetown University; Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology, University of Rochester; B.A., New York University. ** Ph.D. candidate in Psychology, University of Toronto; B.S., Georgetown University. t B.S., Georgetown University. tt M.S. in Physiology, Georgetown University; B.S., Georgetown University. 1. See generally N. FINKEL, THERAPY AND ETHIcS: THE COURTSHIP OF LAW AND PSYCHOLOGY (1980). 2. 16 How. St. Tr. 684 (1723). 3. Id. at 764. 4. N. WALKER, CRIME AND INSANITY IN ENGLAND 140 (1968). 5. Id. 6. Hadfield's Case, 27 How. St. Tr. 1281 (1800). 7. Id. 8. 10 Cl. & Fin. 200, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (1843).