The Crime Book

204

NOT GUILTY BY

REASON OF

INSANITY

DANIEL M’NAGHTEN, 1843

I

n 19th-century England, it had

for centuries been accepted

in law that some criminal

defendants should not be held

responsible for their actions

because of mental “defects”. The

courts also made a distinction

between criminals who knew right

from wrong, and those who did not.

But in 1843, a case challenged the

status quo and saw the formation

of a new standard for evaluating

the criminal responsibility of those

defendants pleading insanity.

Mistaken identity

On 20 January 1843, Scottish

woodworker Daniel M’Naghten

set out to assassinate Britain’s

Tory Prime Minister, Robert Peel,

in London. With murderous intent,

he approached a man whom

he believed was Peel walking

towards Downing Street, site of the

government’s headquarters. He

was, in fact, Edward Drummond,

Peel’s secretary. M’Naghten calmly

drew a pistol and fired at point-

blank range into Drummond’s back.

He was apprehended by a nearby

police officer before he could fire a

second shot. Drummond died a few

days later, and M’Naghten was

charged with his murder.

Guilty but insane

At M’Naghten’s trial the defence

lawyers called nine witnesses who

testified that he had been acting

“suspiciously” and had paranoid

delusions. The accused admitted

his plan to murder Prime Minister

Peel after being “driven to

desperation by persecution.”

During the police interrogation,

M’Naghten claimed to have been

hounded by the ruling Tories who

Daniel M’Naghten was almost

certainly suffering from paranoid

schizophrenia. His trial was a

landmark in that it established a

legal definition of criminal insanity.

IN CONTEXT

LOCATION

London, UK

THEME

Botched assassination

BEFORE

1800 James Hadfield tries to

shoot Britain’s King George III

at a London theatre. He is tried

for high treason, but acquitted

on grounds of insanity when

doctors give evidence on his

mental state. He spends the

rest of his life in a hospital.

AFTER

1954 Monte Durham, a young

man with a history of mental

illness, is convicted of

housebreaking in Washington,

D.C. The appellate court finds

that he is not criminally

responsible because he is

mentally ill, broadening the

defence beyond one of

knowing the difference

between right and wrong. It

is later reversed.

204-205_Daniel_MNaghten.indd 204 02/12/2016 15:03

205

See also: Jeffrey Dahmer 293 ■ The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln 306–09 ■ The Assassination of

John F. Kennedy 316–21

MURDER CASES

followed him everywhere and

wanted to murder him. The

prosecution argued that, in spite

of what they called his “partial

insanity”, M’Naghten was capable

of knowing right from wrong.

However, the jury found him not

guilty on grounds of insanity, and

he was sentenced to spend the rest

of his life in a mental asylum.

The murderer’s acquittal caused

a huge outcry: even Queen Victoria,

who herself had been the victim of

assassination attempts, voiced her

displeasure. There had never been

such a high-profile case that

accepted insanity as a defence.

Legal tests

Unable to disregard the volume of

public and royal discontent, the

government asked a panel of judges

to answer a series of questions

about the law of insanity as applied

in the M’Naghten trial. Their

responses established a specific

test – known as the M’Naghten rule

• to be applied by a jury in an
  insanity case. The rule holds that a
  criminal defendant is presumed to

be sane, and for a plea of insanity

to be accepted, it must be proven

that the defendant has a mental

defect or disease and was not

aware that what they were doing

was wrong. The rule is still used

today in many countries. In the US,

the rule has been modified by some

states to include an “irresistible

impulse” provision. A defendant

can be found not guilty by reason of

insanity if they know the difference

between right and wrong, but

cannot stop themselves from

committing a criminal act.

In almost all cases, a verdict of

not guilty by reason of insanity

leads to a sentence at a mental

health institution for an indefinite

number of years – even life. ■

Hospitals for the criminally insane

Institutions for the criminally

insane have existed since the

early 19th century. In Britain, they

were established by the Criminal

Lunatics Act of 1800 to prevent

the criminally insane from being

housed in regular prisons and

asylums; however, they soon

gained a reputation for poor

treatment and bad conditions.

Institutions for the criminally

insane ostensibly operate just like

other mental health facilities, but,

in fact, they often endanger

patients and staff. In the US,

Bridgewater State Hospital in

southern Massachusetts has

been the subject of numerous

controversies for inmate deaths,

inmate abuse, and overuse of

restraints by hospital workers.

On the other hand, staff are

also at risk. Stephen Seager’s

Behind the Gates of Gomorrah

gave a damning account of the

chronic violence committed by a

small number of patients that he

witnessed when working as a

psychiatrist at California’s Napa

State Hospital.

Lunatic asylums housed Britain’s

insane murderers until 1863, when

Broadmoor, the first high-security

psychiatric hospital, was founded.

The M’Naghten Rule

His or her legal

representatives establish a

defence that proves he is

not sane

Defendant is presumed to be sane

Verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity

Defence shows that the

defendant did not

understand the crime or

know right from wrong

204-205_Daniel_MNaghten.indd 205 02/12/2016 15:03