What is the difference between mental illness and insanity? (Hint: What is the important second prong of the McNaughten rule?) · The McNaughten rule cannot be used to defend the actions of a person who drinks alcohol and then murders someone. Why not? · Identify each of the following:
o Rational and guilty
o Guilty but insane
o Not guilty by reason of insanity
· If you were deciding this case, how would you rule? Briefly explain your decision.
The difference between mental illness and insanity is mental illness doesn’t diminish the legal sense of a individuals capacity to know right and wrong. In terms of insanity, however it does indicate that an individual would not possess the capacity to know the differences between right and wrong. Mental defects such as diseases, retardation, or when hallucinations are experienced in some cases. The rule for McNaughten is simple knowing the difference between right and wrong and was the capacity affected to the point of not understanding a crime when committed. To use insanity in defense of a crime this rule had to be present in order to use.
Mcnaughten’s rule can’t be used to defend intoxicated individuals because it is no longer used in some cases the rule was shortened and now it is knowing the difference between right and wrong. Since an individual is in a diminished state even if they know right from wrong even without mental disease individuals can use it in alcohol related incidents.
Rational and guilty:
When an individual is fully aware of the right and wrong of their actions this is the term used.
Guilty but insane.
Due to mental defect or disease and individual is not able to gain control over themselves even though they know the actions are wrong this is the term used.
Guilty by reason of insanity.
Such in the cases of Clark he had experienced a temporary state of impairment due to schizophrenia that resulted or...