Mc naughten riule
Reading File
Searching the Web
M'Naghten rules forensic psychiatry criminal insanity
Finding Sources
Finding Sources
Finding Sources
Reading File
Reading File
Reading File
Reading File
Here is a complete overview of the M'Naghten Rule (also written McNaughten/McNaughton), drawn from the P C Dikshit Textbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology and supplemented by legal sources.
M'Naghten's Rule (1843)
Background / Historical Case
In 1843, Daniel McNaughten - a 29-year-old Scottish paranoid schizophrenic - believed that British Prime Minister Robert Peel was conspiring against him. He planned to kill Peel but shot Edward Drummond (Peel's private secretary) by mistake. He was acquitted on the basis of medical evidence proving insanity. The case caused public outrage, leading the House of Lords to establish a formal legal test for insanity. McNaughten was subsequently committed to Bethlem Mental Hospital for the rest of his life.
The Rule - Exact Legal Standard
"To establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, as:
- Not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, OR
- If he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong."
- P C Dikshit Textbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, p. 420
Key Legal Presumption
Every person is presumed sane and responsible for their crimes until the contrary is clearly proved.
Application in India
The same principle is incorporated in Section 84 IPC (now Section 22 BNS under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita):
"Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to the law."
Important Clarifications
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Defect of reason | Reasoning powers not functioning normally due to a defect in intellectual/cognitive faculties |
| Nature and quality of act | Judged from physical characters of the act - NOT its moral aspects |
| "Wrong" | Means punishable by law - if the person knew the act was wrong (legally), they are fully responsible even if mentally ill |
Conditions That Must Be Met
- The offence must be directly related to the insanity
- The offence could not have occurred if there were no mental abnormality
- Insanity subsequent to the act is not a valid defence
Illustrative Examples
| Scenario | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| Thinks another will kill him and kills in "self-defence" (delusional) | Not punishable |
| Thinks another person is a wild animal and kills | Not responsible |
| Thinks himself a state executioner | Not responsible |
| Thinks himself a king with right to execute "criminals" | Not responsible |
| Under insane delusion, kills for revenge | Responsible - revenge is not justified even under delusion |
Defects / Criticisms of the M'Naghten Rule
Only intellectual/cognitive factors are considered. The rule ignores:
- Emotional factors
- Delusional beliefs (as a category broader than simple knowledge)
- Irresistible impulse - inability to control impulse is NOT a defence under this rule
Subsequent Rules That Tried to Replace It
| Rule | Year | Key Standard | Fate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Durham Rule (Monte Durham case) | 1954 | "An accused is not criminally responsible if the unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect" | Abolished 1972 - cast too broad a net; alcoholics and drug addicts used it successfully |
| Federal Rule (US) | 1984 (Comprehensive Crime Control Act) | Defendant must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" they were unable to appreciate the nature/wrongfulness of acts due to severe mental disease | Largely a return to M'Naghten's standard |
Summary
The M'Naghten Rule is a cognitive test - it only asks whether the accused knew what they were doing and knew it was wrong. It does not account for emotional disturbance or inability to control behavior. Despite its limitations, it remains the foundational legal test for criminal insanity in most common-law jurisdictions, and its essence is preserved in Indian law under Section 84 IPC / Section 22 BNS.
This is a shared conversation. Sign in to Orris to start your own chat.