英语论文网

Insanity Reform Act Burden Of Proof Law Essay

精神错乱的改革法案的举证责任

精神错乱防御的改革法案，立于1984年，已经表明了举证责任从起诉转移到了防御，证据的标准从证据的优势增加到清晰而令人信服的证据。对于抵制精神病需要不同标准的证据，但是这依靠于那些已经增加神病抵御或者对其进行起诉的人们。不同点就是抵御力度必须证明可能性的平衡，且起诉的人必须毫无置疑地证实。这最有可能迷惑陪审团。它与Woolmington v DPP的案例（1953）的决定相冲突，它表明了压力在基于控诉是在证明犯罪而不是辩护。被告人不得不证明当她犯罪的时候是在发精神病。这给被告人施加了举证责任。批评学家认为对于举证责任对于被告人来说是不公平的。他们声称有可能ECHR的ART6是违反的，这表明了被告人是无辜的，直到被证明他是有罪的。

上议院在1843年建立了M'Naghten规则，它确定了精神病的法律术语。

The insanity defence reform Act 1984 has stated the burden of proof was shifted from the prosecution to the defence and the standard of evidence was increased from predominance of evidence to clear and convincing evidence. There is different standard of proof required for the defence of insanity, but this depends on who has raised the defence of insanity the defence or the prosecution. The difference is that the defence must prove on the balance of probabilities, and the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt. This is most likely to confuse juries. It conflicts with the decision in the case of Woolmington v DPP (1953) which states that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the offence not the defence. The defendant has to prove that s/he was suffering from insanity when s/he committed the offence. This places the evidential burden on the defendant. Critics have argued that it is unfair that the evidential burden is on the defendant they claim that there is possibilities that Art 6 of the ECHR is in breach, which states that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

The House of Lords established the M’Naghten rules in 1843, it defines the legal terminology of insanity. To establish the defence of insanity, the accused must satisfy the M’Naghten rules. This presents that an individual is presumed sane unless it can be proven that at the time of the offence he was “labouring under such defect of reason, arising 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 that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.”

Rules should be abolished because its old

The law on insanity is outdated and in need for urgent reform. The legal definition of insanity has not changed since 1842 and in 1953 evidence provided to the Royal Commission stated the definition of insanity was obsolete and misleading. The issue of insanity has been recognised by the law commission and they include insanity in the 10th programme of reform. They stated “The problems with the existing law are many and serious …and the current rules for determining legal insanity date from 1842.   In those days, the science of psychiatry was in its infancy.” The law commission recommended the abolishment of the M’Naghten rules but this didn’t occur, instead Diminished Responsibility (DR) was introduced as a partial defence to murder.

Critics supported the defence of DR, as they believed it alleviate the uncertainties created by the insanity defence. The defence requires proof that the defendant was suffering from “abnormality of mind”, which “substantially impaired” mental responsibility for their acts. DR is determined by the juries, the defence is open to be interpreted “in accordance with the morality of the case rather than the application of psychiatric concepts”. However the defence of insanity and DR has a major flaw, as it all本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。