Criminal Law: Insanity Defense Quiz

A defense that can be used against most crimes except for murder, attempted murder, accomplice to murder, and treason. The defendant must have been threatened with death, serious harm, or rape to be genuinely compelled to commit the crime.

A defense used when someone is forced to commit a crime due to their circumstances, like being trapped in a dangerous situation.

A defense that allows someone to claim they committed a crime due to the lesser of two evils. This defense rarely succeeds except for medical necessity cases.

The test used to determine if a reasonable person would have resisted the threats. It has two parts: a subjective element and an objective element.

The subjective part of the Graham Test: The accused must genuinely believe committing the crime was necessary to avoid harm.

A state where a person acts unconsciously or involuntarily, without control over their actions.

A defense based on automatism may not be used if the defendant deliberately induced the state themselves, for example by getting drunk or taking drugs.

A state of automatism caused by reckless behavior, such as voluntarily getting drunk, cannot be used as a defense, as recklessness itself is a criminal offense.

If the defendant did not foresee or realize that their actions could lead to automatism, the defense might still be used.

A crime that requires the defendant to have a specific intention or purpose for their actions, such as murder.

Multiple threats can be considered together to see if they justify criminal action, but the threat of death or serious harm must be the main reason.

The threat can be directed at the defendant, their close family members, or someone they have a responsibility to protect.

There must be a direct connection between the threat and the crime committed. It's not enough to just be threatened; the threat must lead to the crime.

The threat must be immediate, not a vague future possibility.

If the defendant had a chance to escape the threat and didn't take it, the defense might be weakened.

If the defendant put themselves in a dangerous situation intentionally, they might not be able to use the duress defense.

The M'Naghten Rules outline the conditions defining the legal defense of insanity: The accused must prove they were suffering from a defect of reason, caused by a disease of the mind, resulting in either not knowing the "nature and quality" of their act or not knowing it was "wrong in law."

The burden of proof for insanity lies with the accused. They must prove they were insane at the time of the crime.

A 'defect of reason' means being deprived of the ability to reason, not just a temporary lapse in judgement.

The 'Disease of the Mind' is a legal definition, not a medical one. It encompasses conditions that might not be medical diseases but involve a malfunctioning of the mind.

Examples of conditions that can be considered 'Disease of the Mind' include: Arteriosclerosis, Epilepsy, Diabetes, and Sleepwalking.

When a defendant claims insanity, they must be unable to understand the nature and quality of their actions due to an internal factor like a mental illness, not an external factor like drugs or alcohol.

A complete loss of voluntary control over one's actions is needed for the defence of automatism to succeed.

In Broome v Perkins, the defendant's defence of non-insane automatism failed because evidence showed partial control over their actions (steering and braking).

A defendant cannot use insanity as a defence if they voluntarily consumed an intoxicating substance. This is because the intoxication is an external factor, not a mental illness.

Duress of Circumstances requires the defendant to face a threat of death or serious injury. This threat also includes a combination of other threats and harm.

Duress of Circumstances is successful when the defendant's actions are seen as reasonable and proportionate to avoiding the threat. The court will assess the situation objectively, considering what a reasonable person would have done in the defendant's position.

Taking prescribed medications is not considered reckless behavior, and therefore can be used as a full defense against a crime.

If a person is involuntarily intoxicated due to taking drugs that make them drowsy or relaxed, they may have a full defense.

If a defendant unknowingly consumes a laced drink, they can use involuntary intoxication as a full defense.

A mistaken belief due to intoxication can be a defense for specific intent crimes but not for basic intent crimes. For example, a mistake related to the victim's identity might be a defense for murder (specific intent), but not for assault (basic intent).

A mistaken belief in self-defense due to voluntary intoxication is not a valid defense. This means that if someone gets drunk and then wrongly believes someone is attacking them, their intoxication will not excuse their actions.

A defense available to a defendant who lacks the required mental state for a crime due to voluntary intoxication, but only for crimes of specific intent.

A defense available to a defendant who lacks the required mental state for a crime due to involuntary intoxication, regardless of whether the crime is of specific or basic intent.

The mental state required for a crime, such as intention, recklessness, or negligence.

Crimes that require a less specific mental state, like recklessness or negligence, to be committed.

A drunken intent is still considered intent, even if the intoxication prevents the defendant from forming the required mental state for the crime.

Intoxication that is self-induced, such as drinking alcohol or taking drugs.

Intoxication that is not self-induced, such as being unknowingly given a drug or having an allergic reaction to medication.