Mind over Matter

Mind Over Matter

Melanie Chapman

PSY/270

August 1, 2013

Michelle Bailey

Mind Over Matter

Whether the individual has a mental illness or a mental disorder, this does not diminish, in a legal sense, whether the patient has the capability to determine what is right and what is wrong. However, when we look at the term insanity and attempt to apply it, this usually indicated that the individual or patient does not, in fact, have the ability to determine the difference between right and wrong. The term insanity includes issues such as mental retardation, mental diseases and mental defects, where sometimes the individual or patient also experiences hallucinations of sorts. McNaughten’s rule originally stated that a person’s mental capacity MUST be impaired, due to mental defect or illness, in order for them to be unable to differentiate between right and wrong. This aspect was required in order for an individual to be able to use the insanity defense in any crime in which they were being prosecuted. Since it originally came about, the rule has since but shortened to say that an individual must not know the difference between right and wrong in order to use the defense. The new, shortened version of this rule allows offenders to use the defense in cases involving alcohol. In those crimes, the individual clearly knows the difference between right and wrong, however, their mental capacity was diminished because of their alcohol consumption. So, technically, the crime was committed in a diminished state and was not necessarily the result of a mental disease or defect.

The term rational and guilty is used when the individual was fully and completely aware that the action they performed was wrong or illegal.

The term guilty but insane is used when the individual knew that their actions were wrong but were, essentially, unable to regain control of the situation and their actions because of a mental disease or defect.

The term guilty by reason of insanity is used...