Many defenses exist which provide either that the accused in question is not guilty of the offence charged, or that the accused is guilty of a lesser offence. As everyone knows the best defense to have on your side is a good alibi: proof that the accused could not have possibly committed the offence in question. This essay will discuss the defense of insanity and if it is a valid and logical defense to use in a courtroom. The defense of insanity has caused much discussion among judges and lawyers alike. Where as no one person can surely and precisely tell the true sanity of an accused at the time of the crime, therefore making one doubt if insanity should be used as a defense. This essay gives a logical approach towards the opinion of criminals and others' about this so-called defense.

The defense of insanity is described in Section 16 of the Criminal Code of Canada as follows:

16)1)No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was insane.

2)For the purpose of this section a person is insane when he is in a state of natural imbecility or has disease of the mind to an extent that renders him incapable of appreciating the nature of quality of an act or omission, or of knowing that an act or omission is wrong.

3)A person who has specific delusions, but is in other respects sane, shall not be acquitted on the ground of insanity unless delusions caused him to believe in the existence of a state of things that if existed, would have justified or excused his act or omission.

4)Everyone shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to be and have been sane.

Section 16 simply states that insanity is a temporary state of mind that affects a person.

It has been proven that an act must be voluntary. Sometimes the accused may act in a state of automatism, which is, involuntarily automatism. A conduct in which he or she has no control over one's body. This defense has two forms.

1)Insane automatism, which can arise from a mental disorder of such a kind that is recognized as insanity.

2)Non-insane automatism which entitles the defendant to an acquittal.

The defense of insanity looks at the state of the accused's mind at the time of the act. The legal criteria for insanity are set out in the case of M'Naughten V.S. the Crown in 1843.Where the accused attempted to murder the Prime Minister but killed his secretary by mistake. Evidence was given that he suffered from delusions and hallucinations . He was acquitted for murder, the verdict was made the subject of a debate in the House of Lords, of whether or not he should receive less of a sentence.

For a plea of insanity the accused in trial must show the following traits: *that he was suffering from a defect of reason and that this was a result of a disease of the mind, so that either he did not know the nature and did not know that the act was wrong . If these are all satisfied then the accused is recognized as acting involuntary as a result of his illness and is not liable for the charges brought against him. Although the accused is under a burden of truth to show insanity and if caught lying can be punished for lying in a court of law.

Disease of the Mind

This phrase provides a small boundary between those who are called sane and those insane. What amounts to a disease of the mind is a legal question and not a medical one. The "Mental Health Act",of 1983 states that "...mental disorder means mental illness, an arrested or incomplete development of the mind, psychopathic disorder and any other disorder or disability of the mind. Many therapists and psychiatrists have dropped the word "insane" and use "psychosis".

Which means the more severe of mental illnesses, involving hallucinations or delusions.

In the case of Charlson v.s. the Crown(1955), Charlson suddenly hit his young son over the head with a hammer. This was completely out of his character, and showed evidence that he suffered from a cerebral tumor, which causes impulsive acts of violence and violent behavior. He raised the defense of insanity and won the case.

Lord Denning from the House of Lords said "...any mental disorder which has manifested itself in violence... and is prone to reoccur is a disease of the mind. Also Lord Diplock said "disease of the mind is equated with future danger. If there is no future danger than there is no disease."

In some cases "external" factors are present such as alcohol or illegal drugs that can affect a disease of the mind with devastating results. One such case was Quick v.s. the Crown(1973), where the accused was a nurse that had diabetes. He was taking insulin and drinking alcohol, later on he assaulted a patient but couldn't remember doing it. This was caused by a deficiency called "hypoglycemia" which shows that there is more insulin in the blood stream than the amount of sugar can handle. This can cause acts of violence and fainting. This is considered a malfunction of the mind. Malfunctions are usually caused by external factors such as drugs including alcohol and marihuana, that prove hostile to one's body and mind and cannot be said is due to the disease.

The media has adapted insanity as a just cause for murder and violence. Movies as well as television use the insane and criminally insane in their programs and shows. One film that is about the insane is "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" which is about criminal who gets sent to a asylum instead of a prison. Another movie is " A Time To Kill" which features a father who while insane kills two men that raped his daughter.

Other forms of insanity include the battered wife syndrome and also self- defense, but that will be discussed at a later time.

Although insanity as a defense is only rarely used, the problem of mental impairment and it's relationship to criminal responsibility is an important issue. It's many meanings and importance will definitely be the subject of a discussion in the near future. After doing this project I have learned that insanity is more of a problem that has to do with law rather than with doctors and medicine. This essay established more of a background towards insanity rather than explaining if it was a valid defense. In my opinion, it is only the accused that can decide wether or not he or she was sane at the time of the crime, not the judge.