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).
- Case
- Durham v. United States, 214 F.2d 862
- Year
- 1954
- Court
- DC Circuit
- Abandoned
- US v. Brawner, 1972
Common questions
What was the main criticism that led courts to abandon the Durham product test?+
Critics argued it effectively transferred the legal question of criminal responsibility to psychiatric witnesses, since almost any unlawful act could be characterised as a product of some diagnosable condition, leaving juries with little independent basis to evaluate the claim.
Did the Durham rule's abandonment mean the product test disappeared from all insanity defence frameworks?+
The DC Circuit's own abandonment in Brawner ended its use there, and no other US jurisdiction adopted it as the primary standard, so it remains largely a historical rather than current insanity defence test in American courts.
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...