There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
| Tell me about|
|For our next session...|
|Popping into your mind|
Insanity is recognised as a behavior in which the person exhibiting it displays beliefs or actions that fall outside of the "normal" recognition of society. Such actions can cause the person to exhibit behaviors that cause them to become a danger to themself or others. When used properly in the fields of psychology, medicine, and law, it denotes the previous definition. The term insanity is more frequently used in an incorrect form, often used in lieu of "abnormal", "unusual", or "crazy."
Legal and medical insanity
Despite popular misconceptions, "insanity" is not considered a medical term, and has been replaced as a legal term. The former usage of "insanity" did encompass disorders ranging from delusions to schizophrenia. The main usage for insanity comes from the legal term, and is used to denote defendants who plead that they were incapable of understanding or controlling their actions at the time they committed the crime. This plea is, again, despite popular perception, rarely used. Officially, the American Medical Association disapproves of the usage of the insanity defense, but the defense has only been outlawed in three states (in order, Utah, Montana, and Idaho).
- the jurors ought to be told in all cases that every man is to be 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 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.
Contrary to popular opinion, claiming insanity as a defence in court isn't a terribly good idea. First off, it's not a defence, it's a special plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity". And second, the usual result is that you get sent to a secure mental hospital forever. This is why it's always good to get your own lawyer rather than defending yourself and relying on old episodes of LA Law.
- s5 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1968 allows courts to impose a hospital order on those found not guilty by reason of insanity, and Sch 1 s2 Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 allows this to be almost indefinite. Whilst community-based options are available, restriction and hospital orders still form roughly half of all disposals for those found not guilty by reason of insanity. See RD Mackay, 'Ten more years of the insanity defence' (2012) 12 CLR 946.