Durham Rule (1954)
Definition
The insanity-defence standard from Durham v. United States (1954) 214 F.2d 862 (DC Circuit): an accused is not responsible if the unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or defect. Criticised for vagueness and for transferring a normative legal question to psychiatric determination; abandoned by the DC Circuit in US v. Brawner (1972).
Related terms
- BNS § 22 / IPC § 84
- India's statutory insanity defence: nothing is an offence done by a person who, by reason of unsoundness of mind at the time...
- Fitness to Stand Trial
- The capacity to participate meaningfully in criminal proceedings: understanding the nature of the charges, following the evidence, and instructing counsel. In England...
- Mental Capacity Act 2005 (England and Wales)
- Statute governing capacity for consent to treatment and other decisions (not testamentary capacity). Requires a person to understand, retain, weigh, and communicate...
- M'Naghten Rules (1843)
- The insanity-defence standard from (1843) 8 Eng Rep 718, formulated by the House of Lords in response to the acquittal of Daniel...
- MPC Substantial-Capacity Test
- The insanity-defence standard from the Model Penal Code (ALI, 1962) § 4.01: not responsible if, as a result of mental disease or...
- Selvi V. State of Karnataka (2010)
- Constitutional bench judgment (2010) 7 SCC 263 holding that compelled narco-analysis, polygraph testing, and brain-mapping violate Article 20(3) and Article 21 of...
- Testamentary Capacity
- The legal capacity to make a valid will. In England and Wales: the Banks v. Goodfellow (1870) test. In India: Indian Succession...
Explained in
- Forensic Psychiatry: Insanity Defence and CapacityThe insanity-defence standard from Durham v. United States (1954) 214 F.2d 862 (DC Circuit): an accused is not responsible if the unlawful act was the product...