The convergence of the legal and medical definition of insanity

Abstract

The notion of ‘insanity’ has been present since ancient times, however, its explicit definition remains cloudy. In fact, the Maltese Criminal Code has not provided a definition of what constitutes ‘insanity’, yet it exempts defendants, from criminal responsibility, who at the time of committing the act or ommission, were in a state of insanity. Although the notion of insanity is not a medical issue, in order to establish whether or not the defendant is insane, the Court cannot rest solely on its judgement, but has to involve medical experts, namely psychiatrists, who are appointed by the court to ascertain whether the accused had the necessary mental capacity at the time of the commission of the offence. However, nowadays, the word ‘insanity’ is no longer used in psychiatric terminology, and is neither mentioned in any classification of mental disorders. The medical understanding of mental disorders has grown drastically, however, the legal understanding of mental disorders remains underdeveloped. The law is supposed to be everchanging. It is constantly developing due to technological advancements, changing social values and attitudes, and for the protection of rights. Hence, why has the law failed to align itself with the current knowledge of mental disorders? This study aims to explore the possibility of the expansion of the Maltese insanity defence, by analysing legal insanity in Malta, the medical understanding of mental disorders, as well as foreign approaches to the insanity defence. This paper therefore, seeks to suggest a way of how to converge antique concepts of insanity, with the modern scientific knowledge of mental disorders. This paper concludes by proposing a recommendation which can be considered by relevant stakeholders, in order to create a defence that is not only present and just, but one which diverges from the stigmatised word ‘insanity’, and moves towards a more accepted, respectful and scientific term.