OSW: an element of the McNagahten Rule of 1834.

Should modern Law Accept rulings from an entirely different Time & Place in History. One could put up a defence like. It was good enough for Brutus & Cassius & their Co-conspirators therefore that is an excuse. I think not. A lot of Precedence's go back far in History as to be meaningless in todays world. Yet they are still dragged up as defences. I think "The MCNagahten Rule of 1834" is one that needs to be dropped.

Maybe AC & Phil S can add some light on that subject.

Bazz: as a reward expects to gain entry to heaven and have 72 virgins made available to him has GOT to be insane !

I don't think they are insane. Brainwashed, Yes. You could say that Christians who believe that the World is only 6000 years old would have to be in the same category.

Jayb the facts bear out that those believing the evolution fantasy will murder their unborn children at much higher rates than those rational enough to see design needing a Designer and laws requiring a Lawmaker. Dont let your hatred lead you to stupidity and to being irrational. Open your eyes and stop denying the obvious. At least be honest enough to face the fact that something does not come from nothing.

Jayb, Brainwashed ?
Is it possible to brainwash someone so they think the obviously absurd
is indeed possible ?
Was it Einstine who said someone doing the same thing over and over
again and expecting something different is insane.

Surely therefore expecting an illogical result is a measure of insanity.

Of course the real action should be to remove the person doing the
brainwashing and the books he is using to reinforce his inhuman project.

Hi there JAYB...

Precedence in common law as opposed to that of codified statute do surprisingly compliment each other rather well. Whenever we speak of making 'excuses' for our behaviour, and that behaviour has had a deleterious impact upon others, and it's done with a 'knowledge' and 'intent'; knowing it will cause a 'corporal hurt' to the victim, then it's clearly a crime under the common law. Though in an adjoining State it may be cited within their 'criminal code' as 'Malicious Injury' or a 'wounding'? In other words - 'A bird by any other name is still a bird'?

Such staid and courtly language is found right throughout the common law JAYB. And many of the Law Lords in those lofty positions of power and influence within the upper echelons of the Judiciary, find it's elegance and appeal compelling. I'm retired now, so much of my opinion may well be dated but most police prefer to work under a criminal code.

However defences to capital charges, need to possess great gravitas, given they're a 'Defence' mechanism to a capital charge. And in the day, they carried the possibility of the Death Penalty. I agree with you 100% JAYB; the McNaghton Judgement is out of date and old hat.

The passages quoted therein, that have been cited as being part of the 'ratio decidendi' - to me at least, they don't make (grammatic) sense? However, as far as I know - remembering I'm only a retired copper, not an academic 'Silk', the McNaghten Rule remains. And is still used, by Counsel for the Accused, in order to mount a Defence of Insanity to a charge of murder

M'Naghten's Rule is fine, under it the accused stands trial and it is up to the Court to decide if the Rule applies.

".... that insanity was a defense to criminal charges only if

at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the 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. (Queen v. M'Naghten, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 [1843])"

The modern problems lie with the expanded versions/interpretations. of the Rule used today.

Hi IS MISE...

You're spot on my friend. I did McNAGHTEN for my sergeants examination. Accompanying that oddly worded paragraph you teased from the law reports of the day, there is around five or so chapters of the 'why's & wherefores' dissecting every word and phrase associated with the rule.

Butterworths 'Criminal Law in NSW' 2nd ed. thoroughly analysed 'the Rule; As did Allen & ors in 'Criminal Law' 10th ed. The eminent 'Cross and ors' wasn't to be left out either, in their 'Criminal Law' 18th ed. In fact IS MISE I've not known another issue so discussed, argued or disputed by law academics for ages.

As you carefully examine that part of the 'ratio decidendi' the language is confusing as is the punctuation, so how are we to extract the precise import of the ratio? I provided a direct quote of the Rule - @ p5 on this Topic, on Sat 30 Dec last. You'll notice there's a variation in our two extracts, nevertheless it has the essential same wording? I'm very glad someone has gone to the trouble to pull out the Rule. Trust the Army to do things right!

Oh just one last consideration - It's up to the Defence to 'prove' their client was insane, pursuant to the Rule. Whereas in normal criminal trials, it's the Crown who must prove their case to 'a point beyond that of a reasonable doubt'. Whereas it's been argued 'up hill 'n down dale' that the accused was insane at the time he committed the act, on the lesser burden of proof, that is; 'on the balance of probabilities'. Mate, I'm buggered - so I'm off to bed!