Irresistible impulse
One of the major criticisms of the M’Naghten rule is that it’s focused on the ability to know right from wrong but fails to take into consideration the issue of control.
Psychiatrists agree that it is possible to understand that one's behaviour is wrong, but still, be unable to stop oneself.
To address this, some states have modified the M’Naghten test
with an "irresistible impulse" provision.
Irresistible impulse absolves a defendant who can distinguish right and wrong but is nonetheless unable to stop himself from committing an act he knows to be wrong.
(In the USA this test is also known as the "policeman at the elbow" test: Would the defendant have
committed the crime even if there were a policeman standing at his elbow?).
Irresistible
impulse is where an offender is insane if a mental disorder prevents him
from resisting the commission of an illegal act that he or she knows, is wrong.
There are a number of other criticisms of the rule where the rules are too narrow in that they do not cover lack of control arising out of a mental condition.
Psychiatrists lack reliable means of telling whether a person was insane at the time of the offence. They can rely only on what the accused said and did. A shrewd accused might lie. On this basis, he might escape punishment for his crimes.
Diminished Responsibility
The doctrine of diminished responsibility originated from the law of Scotland as a judicial creation.
The concept that "weakness of mind" can alter the character of a criminal offence was first recognized by Lord Deas in
H.M. Advocate v. Dingwall (1867), 5 Irv. 466.
The accused in that case was charged with murdering his wife after he had consumed a substantial quantity of whiskey.
It was established that his mind had been weakened by repeated attacks of delirium tremens and that he had
likely suffered from epileptic fits.
In charging the jury, Lord Deas instructed that the defenses
of insanity and drunkenness were untenable, but that a verdict of culpable
homicide (manslaughter) could be returned if the weakness of the mind was found.
In Uganda, diminished responsibility is provided for
under section 194 of the Penal Code Act which states that if a person is found
guilty of the murder or of being a party to the murder and the court is
satisfied that he or she was suffering from an abnormality of mind, which
substantially impaired his or her mental responsibility for his or her acts and
omissions in doing or being a party to the murder, the court makes a special
finding to the effect that the accused was guilty of murder but with diminished
responsibility.
R v Byrne
(1960) 2 QB 396
The appellant murdered a young girl staying and mutilated her body. He did so as he was suffering from irresistible impulses which he was unable to control.
Medical evidence showed that the killing was
under the influence of perverted sexual desire and that he would find it
difficult to control his desire.
Court held that "Abnormality of mind"..,
means a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that reasonable man would term it abnormal.
Abnormality of mind appears to be wide enough to
cover the mind's activities in all its aspects, not only the perception of
physical acts and matters and the ability to form a rational judgment whether
an act is right or wrong, but also the ability to exercise will-power to
control physical acts in accordance with that rational judgment.
Note;
The types of mental conditions that fall within the doctrine of diminished responsibility are difficult to classify.
Case law
suggests, however, that where there is clear evidence of mental abnormality,
whether it be psychosis, epilepsy, sub-normality, or in some instances neurosis,
a plea of diminished responsibility will be accepted.
Other issues to note;
- Diminished responsibility is, therefore, a specific defense that is, it applies only to murder. It is not a complete defense but only a partial one, which reduces murder to manslaughter. In this regard, it is different from insanity which potentially applies to all offences. In respect of other offences, diminished responsibility can be taken into account in the sentencing.
- Furthermore, diminished responsibility applies even though the accused knew the nature
and quality of the act and knew that what he was doing was legally wrong.
- Like insanity,
however, the burden of proof is on the accused.
Infanticide
Infanticide might be called a ‘concealed’ partial defence”, created by legislation as a specific offence.
It is committed when a mother whose balance of mind is disturbed kills her baby when the baby is less then 12 months old.
Infanticide is both an offence and a partial defense. A mother may be charged with this offence.
Alternatively, she may be charged with murder and plead infanticide as a partial defense to murder. It’s usually referred to as “offence/defense of infanticide”.
In Uganda, it’s provided for under Section 213 PCA which provides that;
“ a woman by any willful act or omission causes the death of her child under the age of twelve months, but at the time of the act or omission the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child, then, notwithstanding that the circumstances were such that but for the provisions of this section the offence would have amounted to murder, she commits the felony of infanticide, and may for such offence be dealt with and punished as if she had been guilty of the offence of manslaughter of the child”.
Notable features of infanticide as distinguished from other offences and defenses, in particular, from the defense of diminished responsibility.
- Infanticide operates not only as a defence to a charge of murder but is also as a separate offence unlike the partial defenses of diminished responsibility and provocation.
- When raised as a defense, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove a claim of infanticide beyond a reasonable doubt. In contrast, the defense of diminished responsibility shifts the burden of proof to the accused on the balance of probabilities.
- The offence/defense of infanticide does not require that the act or omission of killing be causally linked to the disturbance of the mother’s mind. It is usually a temporal connection. In contrast, diminished responsibility requires that the defendant’s “abnormality of mind … substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts or omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.”
- The phrase “the balance of her mind was disturbed” is unique to infanticide. It is different to both the test for insanity and the test for diminished responsibility “abnormality of mind”
- The offence/defence of infanticide is unique in that it is only available to a particular group of persons (biological mothers) who kill a particular victim (their own baby who must be less than 12 months old).