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.
• 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.
Sample Answer
The concept of "guilty but insane" (or more formally, Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity - NGRI) is often viewed as a legal paradox. At its core, it addresses the fundamental requirement of mens rea (guilty mind): if a person's mental state prevents them from forming intent or understanding the wrongfulness of their actions, they cannot be held criminally liable, even if they committed the actus reus (the physical act).
Great Britain relies on the M’Naghten Rules, which focus almost entirely on cognition. To be successful, the defense must show the defendant did not know the "nature and quality" of their act or did not know it was "wrong." This is a narrow, strict standard that leaves little room for "irresistible impulses" or volitional defects.Great Britain relies on the M’Naghten Rules, which focus almost entirely on cognition. To be successful, the defense must show the defendant did not know the "nature and quality" of their act or did not know it was "wrong."@ This is a narrow, strict standard that leaves little room for "irresistible impulses" or volitional defects.