ORDER A SIMILAR PAPER NOW

For this week’s assignment, you will evaluate criminal justice in selected countries. Since  mens rea refers to criminal intent, the concept of guilty but insane sounds like an oxymoron to most people. Chapters 1 and 3 in the course text discuss international perspectives on criminal law. Find additional credible sources to research criminal intent in Great Britain and Norway. The Daniel McNaughton and Anders Breivik cases might be helpful. These cases are notorious for the guilty but insane defense in Great Britain and Norway.

For your assignment

· Assess how criminal intent in these two countries differs from the United States when it comes to an insanity defense.

· Describe at least one case in each country (Great Britain, Norway, and the United States) where this defense has been used successfully.

The paper

· Must be at least three double-spaced pages in length (not including title and references pages)

SOLUTION

Criminal Intent and the Insanity Defense: Great Britain, Norway, and the United States

1. Differences in How Criminal Intent Is Treated

United States
In the U.S., criminal intent (mens rea) is a core element of most crimes — the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally or knowingly committed the offense. The insanity defense is an affirmative defense in most jurisdictions, meaning the defendant admits to the act but argues they were not legally responsible due to mental illness at the time. Many U.S. jurisdictions still use tests based on the M’Naghten Rule, which asks whether the defendant understood the nature and wrongfulness of their act due to a “defect of reason” from mental illness.
There are variations, such as the Model Penal Code test asking whether the defendant lacked “substantial capacity” to appreciate criminality or conform behavior to law, and some states (e.g., Kansas, Idaho, Montana, and Utah) have limited or abolished traditional insanity defenses.

Great Britain (England & Wales)
British law also commonly applies the M’Naghten Rules for insanity, inherited historically from the case of Daniel M’Naghten (1843), where the defendant was acquitted due to severe defect of reason and inability to know right from wrong. Courts in Great Britain presume defendants are sane, and the defense must show a “disease of the mind” impaired rational understanding at the time of the act.

Norway
Norwegian law takes a different medical model approach to insanity: the key question is whether the person was psychotic or severely mentally disordered at the time, without requiring a causal link between that condition and the crime. This differs from common law jurisdictions, which typically focus on cognitive or moral understanding of the act. If the defendant meets Norway’s criteria for being unaccountable due to a severe mental disorder, they are not criminally responsible and instead face compulsory psychiatric care rather than traditional punishment.

---

2. Cases Where Insanity Defense Has Been Used Successfully

Great Britain — Daniel M’Naghten (1843)
In this foundational case, Daniel M’Naghten killed the private secretary to the British Prime Minister under the delusion that the government was persecuting him. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity because he did not understand the nature or wrongfulness of his act due to a severe defect of reason. This result led to establishment of the M’Naghten Rules used in British courts to define insanity.

United States — John Hinckley Jr. (1981)
In the U.S., one of the most notable uses of the insanity defense was in United States v. Hinckley. Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan and was found not guilty by reason of insanity. The defense argued and the jury accepted that Hinckley was unable to distinguish right from wrong at the time due to mental illness, resulting in his commitment to a psychiatric institution rather than prison.

Norway — Espen Andersen Bråthen (2021)
In Norway, Espen Andersen Bråthen was responsible for a mass killing using weapons, including a bow and arrow. While he pleaded guilty, a Norwegian court later determined his chronic paranoid schizophrenia meant he was not criminally responsible in the usual criminal sense and ordered compulsory psychiatric care rather than a standard prison sentence.

Note: Anders Breivik’s infamous 2011 attacks on Norway did not result in an insanity verdict; he was found sane and was sentenced to prison because psychiatrists disagreed on whether he was psychotic at the time of the crimes.

---

References You Can Use

Here are credible sources for your research and citations:

1. M’Naghten Rule and Insanity Defense History — Open Casebook overview of British/common law standards.
   Useful for comparing legal tests and explaining the historical roots of insanity defenses.

2. U.S. Insanity Defense & Tests — Open Oregon Mental Health & Criminal Justice System textbook (insanity defense formulations).

3. Norwegian Insanity Defense and Medical Model — Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (Norwegian doctrine differences).

4. Norwegian Penal Code Section 20 & Criteria — ScienceDirect article on Norway’s criminal insanity law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER A SIMILAR PAPER NOW