INTRODUCTION
There are a wide range of defenses this a
defendant may use in a bid to mitigate or to stop the conviction. Some of these
defenses may prove a loophole that many criminals escape conviction and
therefore no achievement of justice .some of these defenses are;
1.
M’NAGHTEN
RULE
This
is a defense which arose from the attempted assassination of British Prime
Minister, Robert Peel, in 1843 by Daniel M’Naghten. The bullet fired by M’Naghten
hit peels secretary, Edward Drummond, who died five years later. M’Naghten
argued that he was not criminally responsible for his actions because he
suffered from delusions at the time of the killing. The court held that the
defendant may be excused from criminal liability if at the time of commission of
the act; the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason from a
disease of the mind as not to know the nature of his actions. The jury chaired
by Sir Nicorlar Conyngahm Tindal came up with a principle which has come to be
known as M’Naghten rules after M’Naghten had defended himself that he was
insane at the moment of commission of the crime. The house of Lords stated that that , “…..every man is
presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be
responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction;
and to establish a defense on the ground
of the act ,the party accused was
laboring under such defect of reason from disease of the mind ,as not know the
nature and the quality of the act he was
doing ,or if he did know, that he did not know he doing what was wrong…….’’
Overtime,
this has become common defense insanity. As the jurors had established, insanity
results into total acquittals not a verdict of “not guilty by reason of
insanity.”
In
this defense therefore the defendant has to prove that at the time of
commission or omission he/she had a defect of reason, that is, on internal
failure in thinking process and the defect prevented the understanding of the
true position or the possession of the mind. This however brings uncertainty to
the defense since even the epileptic and the diabetic may prove to use the defense.
According
to the Mental Health Act (1983), the mentally imbalanced persons who are
dangerous should be restrained and if possible treated .For a case of murder, the
sentence must be a hospital order with restriction on discharge.
This
defense, however, has had various loopholes which deter justice and leads to
undue acquittals and convictions. These are:
Ø
At
the court, the accused is contending that he was insane but is now sane; this defense
looks hard to prove to a jury and as it is, the defendant has the sole duty to
prove that he was insane. This has always defeated many accused persons to
prove their alleged insanity to the satisfactory status, through they might
have actually been insane at that time.
Ø
Some
people who formerly might have used this defense are now charged with infatiade
or have the defense of diminished responsibility where the charge is one of murder.
For example in the case of Tickel1, the accused, a schizophrenic
successfully pleaded diminished responsibility but was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Before the defense was instituted, he would have had a defense of insanity.
This implies that there are some people, who due to the progressive nature of
the rule didn’t benefit from the rule though they are entitled to.
Ø
Most
accused person whose punishment may be less than life imprisonment may opt to
go to prison rather than to a mental hospital. This is because of the longer
time they shall spend at the mental hospital than in prison .This has made many
accused persons to plead guilty and not use the insanity defense, though
applicable to them, so as to spend a minimum time at the prison.
Ø
Medical
irrelevancy- the legal and medical definition of insanity differs and even
though legal definition suffices, mandatory hospitalization is always ordered
in the case of murder. This has always proved irrelevant. In the case where the
defendant is not medically insane, there’s little point in requiring medical treatment.
This has always been a loophole to justice as many have opted to plead guilty
and serve a lenient imprisonment than the longer duration at the hospital.
Ø
Ineffectiveness
and the width of the phrase-The rule doesn’t distinguish between defendant who
represents public danger and those who don’t .Illness such as diabetes and
epilepsy can be controlled by medication such that sufferers are less likely to
have temporary aberrations of mental capacity. However, the law doesn’t recognize
this and the diabetic and epileptic can also use the insanity defense .This is
a serious loophole since a diabetic or epileptic may commit a crime when in
full sense but by virtue of being ‘’insane” can
escape trial and be acquitted
Ø
Lack
of proof– Psychiatrists lack reliable means of telling whether a person was
insane at the time of commission of the crime.
Footnotes
1.
1958 (The Times 24 January)
There
might be difficulty in proving insanity which is purported to have occurred
after a long period of time. A shrewd accused might lie to have been insane at
the time of commission and since it is difficult to prove, he might escape
conviction .This is a serious loophole to justice since the lack of proof of
insanity may lead to undue convictions or acquittal. On the same note, since it
is only in this defense where the defendant has the sole responsibility of proof,
a person may lack though his /her quest is genuine.
In regard to all the above, it is necessary to
note that this defense is a serious loophole to justice there is no reason for
the answers to this hypothetical question being legally binding. The judges
never intended the rules to be read as if they were words of a statute. This
mean that a lot of research, proof and care should be taken when considering
this defense so as to upheld justice
2) AUTOMATISM
This is one of the mental state
of a defendant. It means that the defendant was not aware of his actions when
making the particular movement that constituted the illegal act. For example, in
the case of Ester Griggs (1858) where the defendant threw her child out of a
first floor window believing that the house was on fire.
This defense explores the
automatic and involuntary actions that an accused might have done subject to an
involuntary reflex action
However, this defense has also
various loopholes and the serious one is that of proof. It is difficult to
prove that the defendant was acting involuntary. The defendant might have acted
voluntarily but in defense clinch to automatism .This means that it would be difficult
to prove (if incase he successful plead for automatism) the mens rea which is required for
conviction
With this loophole, some might
escape conviction by pleading for automatism.
3)
ALIBI
This is the mode of defense where a defendant
proves or attempts to prove that he/she was in another place when a crime was
committed.
For a conviction for commission
,the defendant must be have been at the place to alleged by the prosecution, and
if he incase proves that he wasn’t in
the alleged place and position of crime ,then the case has to be reviewed or
dismissed
However, there’s a serious
loophole in this defense in that:
i)
The
defendant may successfully plead with a
defense of alibi, though it is false alibi .This might lead to his acquittal .This
is repugnant to justice since guilty person may be acquitted on this ground.
ii)
Alibi
agencies are literally paid to lie for their customers. With this they may successfully
lie and prove an alibi that is false resulting in the acquittal of a guilty
person.
4)
JUDICIAL OFFICERS
A judicial officer is not criminally
responsible for anything done or committed to be done by him in the excessive
of his judicial functions.
This is a serious loophole since
the officer may escape conviction for crimes they might have committed
intentionally by virtue of their judicial powers.
By virtue of the office, it may
be difficult to prove the mens rea
since if the officer was acting within the power, his action might not constitute
a criminal act.
However,
some defenses have always been reliable, strong and genuine and have always led
to the upholding of justice in criminal cases. Such defenses include:
5. ENTRAPMENT
This is where the accused engaged
in the conduct charged because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement
agent using persuasion or other means likely to cause persons to commit the
offence.
This is a strong and reliable
defense since though the accused might have the actus rea, due to persuasion, the charge shall lack a mens rea. However to a minute extent,
there might arise cases of false use of this defense, though it is in rare
cases.
6. DURESS
This is where the accused engaged
in the proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by threat of
imminent death or serious bodily harm top himself or to another. This is a
strong and a genuine defense since an accused had not done the criminal act due
to willingness, but for the sake of his/her health and life or the health and
life of another person he was compelled to act criminally. This means that in
case of a charge, there is the lack of the mens
rea responsible and essential for a criminal charge.
Other defenses in criminal law
include
i)
Mistake
of law
ii)
Intoxication
iii)
Mistake
of fact
CONCLUSION
In a nutshell, most of the
general defenses available in criminal law have serious loophole which have
always been repugnant to justice and have always led to undue convictions and
acquittals .The problem of proof is a serious one in both the M’Naghten rule
and automatism.
Therefore, in convictions and
judgments in various cases, care and greater analysis of proof should be
adhered to so as to ensure justice is upheld
nicely explained the topic "Investment Plan" same as you mention about is quite popular these days in the united kingdom, our company provides services for the same kindly visit to know more: Legal Service Uk
ReplyDelete