Mapping the contradictions in insanity a comparative study of the legal and medical discourse

Abstract

Human beings are a subject of law as they are naturally endowed with free will and reason. This makes their action either commendable or culpable; as where there is no free will to commit an offence there can be no just reason to incur penalty. As free will presupposeth understanding to know the action chosen hence where there is no understanding, there is no free will to commit an offence. The presence of free will may be influenced not only by maturity of mind but also from a debilitated condition permanent or temporary of mind. This debilitated condition of mind that grants an exemption from criminal responsibility is a cause of friction between the legal and medical profession. The legal provision on defence of insanity is based on the fact that the defence cannot protect a person unless his cognitive faculties of the mind is affected at the time of commission of crime, to such an extent that the accused is not able to understand the nature of the act or that what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law. Hence, insanity in law is rooted on the intellectualistic conception of cognitive faculties and is an affirmative defense. In a legal arena one therefore is not concerned with mental disease per se rather the effect of illness on the cognitive faculties. On the contrary, the medical profession has maintained that the defense of insanity in law is based on an entirely obsolete and misleading conception since insanity not only or primarily, affects the cognitive faculties of mind but also affects the whole personality of the patient including his abilities to exercise control over his actions. Legal insanity therefore collides with the medical insanity as it ignores the impact of illness on emotional health of a person which impacts the moral equilibrium of an individual... newline