The M'Naghten rule was codified in the 1840s, in an English case involving Daniel M'Naghten. It states that "...that every man is to be presumed to be sane, and ... that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from 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...." But the insanity defense is much older than that though. The “wild best test” transformed insanity law and first found use in the 1724 case of Rex v. Arnold. The trial judge (Judge Tracy) instructed the jurors to acquit the defendant by reason of insanity if it was found that he was “a man totally deprived of his understanding and memory, and doth not know what he is doing, no more than a brute, or a wild beast, such a one is never the object of punishment.” And the concept of defense by insanity has existed since ancient Greece and Rome. The first known recognition of insanity as a defense to criminal charges was recorded in a 1581 English legal treatise stating that, “If a madman or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy” kills someone, they cannot be held accountable. The British courts came up with the “wild beast” test in the 18th Century, in which defendants were not to be convicted if they understood the crime no better than “an infant, a brute, or a wild beast.” As any first year law student can tell you, the insanity defense comes up in less than one percent of the cases, and always has, because it is relatively rare. BTW, "...the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing..." means the party didn't know what he was even doing at all, like if he thought he was stabbing a log instead of a person. And "...or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong..." means he thought there was some other reason whey he or she was doing it, like if someone killed their dentist, because he thought he was going to murder him, instead of clean his teeth. The insanity defense is actually part of a much larger group of defenses, called affirmative defenses, including justification, duress, impossibility, and entrapment, just to name the ones I can remember. I am not a lawyer, so I can't imagine which one is used the most. But I would guess entrapment. Every other nation on earth has some variation of the insanity defense. So what's the big deal?
I was living in San Francisco when Dan White murdered Harvey Milk and Mayor Moscone. He pleaded diminished capacity due to depression, and was convicted of manslaughter instead of first-degree murder. The same week the verdict came in, another guy in California who literally believed that he was a vampire and drank the blood of his victim was convicted of first-degree murder. In the dock, who's sane and who's crazy often comes down to who has the better ($$$) lawyer.
Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if there is. We're in a class by our own with some of these things. BTW you know, Sharia law isn't all that bad. Mohammed gave women rights that they didn't have in England untill the Victorian Age. Except now. But you know the thing about the Koran, is it just has everything so well written down, no exceptions. In the ancient Christian world they practiced brandings, dismemberment and probably worse. It's just not written down at least as well, I think.
Upon checking I find nothing like an insanity defense is even mentioned in Sharia. It's an eye for an eye. And fluidly interpreted across the many nations of the Arab world.
Yes, indeed, there is an insanity defense in Islamic law, recognized by all five schools of Sharia. A hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (Aisha; Suna An-Nassai 3432; Shaykh Al-Albani) says that an insane person is exempt from punishment until (s)he regains sanity. Khar, M.M (N.D) Sahih al-Bukhar Arabic-English Vol. VIII, Dar al-Arab Beirut p. 528 The insanity defense used is similar to the M'Naghten rules.: such defect of reasoning or disease of the mind as not to ,know right from wrong or the nature and quality of one's act. https://seahipaj.org/journals-ci/dec-2016/IJILPS/full/IJILPS-D-3-2016.pdf Rabi’u .... Int. J. Innovative Legal & Political Studies 4(4):19-29, 2016 Rulings in Islamic fiqh concerning one who is insane - Islam Question & Answer https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15564900701238799?journalCode=ummh20
Yes, indeed, there is an insanity defense in Islamic law, recognized by all five schools of Sharia. A hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (Aisha; Suna An-Nassai 3432; Shaykh Al-Albani) says that an insane person is exempt from punishment until (s)he regains sanity. Khar, M.M (N.D) Sahih al-Bukhar Arabic-English Vol. VIII, Dar al-Arab Beirut p. 528 The insanity defense used is similar to the M'Naghten rules.: such defect of reasoning or disease of the mind as not to ,know right from wrong or the nature and quality of one's act. https://seahipaj.org/journals-ci/dec-2016/IJILPS/full/IJILPS-D-3-2016.pdf Rabi’u .... Int. J. Innovative Legal & Political Studies 4(4):19-29, 2016 Rulings in Islamic fiqh concerning one who is insane - Islam Question & Answer https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15564900701238799?journalCode=ummh20
