M’Naghten Insanity Defense
Derek Chauvin’s case can be looked at from the M’Naghten Insanity Defense. This particular defense demands that a person that he or she was not aware of his actions while committing the crime. In this scenario, the Minnesota community knows Chauvin as a kind person who has dedicated his life to serving the community. Throughout his career, Chauvin has been able to identify right from wrong a demanded by his profession. This ability has allowed him to serve in the Minnesota police force for a long time. The excellent reputation that Chauvin had built over the years would be damaged when he and three other officers were sent to enforce an arrest on George Floyd. Chauvin found himself as the person mandated to hold Floyd. The events that later unfolded proved resulted in Mr. Floyd’s death under Chauvin’s hands. However, the defendant cannot be blamed for the death as he was not aware of what he was doing at the time, as established by the M’Naghten Insanity Defense. Thus, Chauvin’s innocence is proved by the fact that he was mentally unstable during the incidence, hence not aware of his actions as highlighted by the M’Naghten insanity defense.
M’Naghten Insanity Defense Background
The English House of Lords formulated the M’Naghten Insanity Defense in the 19th century. The rule relies on the sanity levels of individuals to determine whether they are guilty of a crime. An individual is said to be innocent of the crime when established that he or she did not have the legal capacity to differentiate right from wrong at the time of committing the crime. The law presumes every individual to be sane while facing trial. However, to present a defense under the M’Naghten Insanity rule, a person must prove: “that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, and not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong” (Weiss & Gupta, 2018).
The defense origin emanated from the 1843 acquittal of Daniel M’Naghten. He had been accused of shooting and killing Edward Drummond after mistaking him for Robert Peel, the then Uk Prime Minister. M’Naghten was acquitted following the Court’s ruling that he was not aware of his actions since he had failed to differentiate right from wrong (Rix, 2016). Thus, the defense requires a person to prove that he or she was not in the right frame of mind while committing a crime.
Two conditions must exist for the M’Nagthen defense to be applied in a case:
- First, the Court must be able to determine whether the “wrong” involved in the matter is something that should be handled by the law, that is, whether it falls within the legal or morals of the land or both.
- Likewise, a person should be legally unfit in terms of sanity, thereby not understanding his or her behavior when committing the crime.
The critical challenge to Chauvin’s defense, in this case, is to prove that he was not aware of his actions. The fact that Chauvin has a mental disorder makes it viable for him to claim that the condition prevented him from being aware of his actions. Moreover, Chauvin will have to prove why the mental condition has never stopped him from exercising his professional duties in the past.
In this case, Chauvin’s defense proves that he was not aware of his actions when enforcing the arrest. Failure to be aware of his actions will show that Chauvin could not differentiate right from wrong. The major hurdle to the case will emerge from questions on Chauvin’s entire years in the police force and how he handled his duties.
Facts of the Case
There are several facts to this particular case that determines Chauvin’s innocence. For instance, one clear thing evident in the case is that Chauvin has always been a dedicated police officer during his entire 19-years as a public servant. The many years that he has served in the police force thus show that he is a person who was committed to serving his community. It would not have been possible for him to go through all these years without being chased out of the department if he had been a rogue officer, as some individuals claim. Most community members have pointed at him as a lovely individual who served them well.
Another facet of the case is seen in the matter being an issue that should be determined by the courts. This is seen in it touching on the legal and moral issues that courts are supposed to handle, thus satisfying the first condition of the M’Naghten insanity defense. The requirement demands that Court must be able to determine whether the law should handle the “wrong” involved in the matter, that is, whether it falls within the legal or morals of the land or both. Several aspects of the case make it satisfy the first requirement of the M’Naghten insanity defense. For instance, the case can be looked at from a legal perspective whereby Chauvin faces murder charges. This is supported by code 1111 of the constitution, which portrays murder as any case of killing a person as a result of malice and prior thoughts. The fact that Chauvin’s murder case is being debated thus makes it something that falls within the legality of the court to handle the issue. Also, the case can be argued from the perspective of Chauvin accidentally committing the murder. In this instance, the case is categorized as manslaughter and considered to fall in code 1112 of the United States’ constitution. Murder is portrayed as the act of killing a person without having intentions to do so. Chauvin’s legality is to defend himself based on manslaughter, thereby making this case something to be determined by the court. Moreover, Chauvin can argue his innocence based on the insanity defense. The country’s constitution allows individuals to argue out their innocence based on mental capacity. Thus, the legal nature of the insanity defense act makes the case an issue to be heard by the courts.
The second requirement of the M’Naghten insanity defense requires that a person should be declared legally unfit, thereby making him or her unable to account for his behavior to be considered innocent. In this particular scenario, Chauvin is depicted as innocent of the different murder charges brought against him due to a lack of better mental capacity. Most people may point out that Chauvin may be in the right state of mind, given the lengthy time he has worked in the police service. The individuals might continue to point out that Chauvin could not have managed to undertake his police duties for that long if he was not in his right state of mind. However, the individuals seem to be oblivious of the fact that not all cases of mental challenges have physical manifestations. For instance, depression is considered a significant mental challenge that many people face without being realized. The same can be seen in Chauvin’s case.
Chauvin is suffering from a mental complication. In particular, he is highlighted as suffering from an anxiety disorder. This is illustrated in the numerous complaints filed against his erratic behavior while dealing with the public. Chauvin had 18 complaints raised against his conduct by different people. Most of the cases involved instances of exchanges where Chauvin is highlighted as having reacted in anger and used demeaning words against the individuals. It is the repetitive nature of the events that lead to the questioning of Chauvin’s state of mind. It is only a public servant who suffers from mental challenges that would continuously engage in activities that violate the moral principles of his or her job. Also, Chauvin is highlighted as finding himself in such challenges when some form of confrontation is involved. Therefore, it shows that the situations elicit some fear in Chauvin, leading to the development of anxiety. The issue of anxiety can be confirmed in a 2008 shooting instance. Chauvin is depicted to have used his gun to shoot a domestic abuse offender after some form of confrontation. The event thus affirms that Chauvin tends to develop some form of fear when confronted, making him showcase erratic behavior as a form of protection. This behavior thus illustrates that Chauvin suffers from an anxiety disorder when confronted.
The existence of the anxiety disorder can be seen in Chauvin’s handling of Floyd. The short stint of confrontation with Floyd made Chauvin feel that the suspect was resisting arrest. The confrontation thus elicited the anxiety disorder making Chauvin lose his mental capacity. The fact that people suffering from anxiety disorders are considered not mentally stable proves that Chauvin was not in his right mind when Floyd died at his hands. Also, failure in an individual’s mentality means that he or she cannot determine whether it is right or wrong. The fact that the anxiety struck Chauvin during his encounter with Floyd means he was unaware of his actions. Lack of awareness is further demonstrated in his action to place a knee on a suspect’s neck even though the police are not required to use such practices. Likewise, Chauvin was seen as partially smiling during the incident. Thus, it proves that he was not aware of his actions since a reasonable person would not kill another in the full glare of eyewitnesses while smiling.
Criticism of the Theory
The M’Naghten rule has received several criticisms. One such criticism is that it fails to factor in the medical aspects of testing insanity. The judges can still rely on legal meanings of insanity to make judgments despite medical tests proving that a person is not insane (Gulrajani, 2017). Likewise, the method fails to determine defendants who are perceived as dangerous to society and those not. Moreover, the theory is considered a loophole that allows people with severe mental conditions to avoid punishment.
Conclusion
The M’Naghten Insanity rule is the best form of defense for Chauvin’s case. The law seeks to disapprove that Chauvin did not murder Floyd. On the contrary, the event can be perceived as an accident as Chauvin was unaware of his actions at that particular time. The lack of awareness was contributed by the mental disorder that prevented him from reasoning. It is, therefore, evident that Chauvin was not able to differentiate right from wrong. Likewise, Chauvin had been a proper officer during his entire police service. He had carried out his duties in a patriotic manner throughout his time as the police. It is only during Floyd’s case that he gets into the unfortunate incident where a person dies in his hands. However, Chauvin cannot be blamed for the death since he was not in his right mind, thereby failing to determine right from wrong as dictated by the M’Nagthen insanity defense.
References
Gulrajani, C. (2017). Difficult Defenses in the Courtroom. Psychiatric Annals, 47(12), 576-577.
Rix, K. J. (2016). Towards a more just insanity defense: recovering moral wrongfulness in the M’Naghten Rules. BJPsych Advances, 22(1), 44-52.
Weiss, K. J., & Gupta, N. (2018). America’s First M’Naghten Defense and the Origin of the Black Rage Syndrome. The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 46(4), 503-512.