A principle ofCRIMINAL LAWused to determine the validity of theINSANITY DEFENSEasserted by an accused, that he or she was insane at the time of committing a crime and therefore should not be held legally responsible for the action.
Back in the day, there was instances that this rule has contributed to criminal proceedings. It was firstly put out to give an end to the criticisms about insanity in criminal procedures. (in mid 20th century)
Today:
"the court in Brawner emphasized that no particular formulation of words provides an easy solution to the difficult problems involved in assessing the sanity of a person accused of committing a criminal act. Instead, the court asserted that criminal responsibility in such trials is best assessed by a properly informed jury that is not overly dominated by expert testimony. To help juries make such assessments, the court required experts to explain the underlying reasons for their opinions rather than giving yes-or-no answers to simplistic questions."
For those people who do not know:
Durham's Rule is:
A principle ofCRIMINAL LAWused to determine the validity of theINSANITY DEFENSEasserted by an accused, that he or she was insane at the time of committing a crime and therefore should not be held legally responsible for the action.
Read more: Durham Rule - Criminal, Accused, Jury, and Court - JRank Articleshttps://law.jrank.org/pages/6321/Durham-Rule.html#ixzz7I85RVIpj
Back in the day, there was instances that this rule has contributed to criminal proceedings. It was firstly put out to give an end to the criticisms about insanity in criminal procedures. (in mid 20th century)
Today:
"the court in Brawner emphasized that no particular formulation of words provides an easy solution to the difficult problems involved in assessing the sanity of a person accused of committing a criminal act. Instead, the court asserted that criminal responsibility in such trials is best assessed by a properly informed jury that is not overly dominated by expert testimony. To help juries make such assessments, the court required experts to explain the underlying reasons for their opinions rather than giving yes-or-no answers to simplistic questions."