Research the McNaughton rule. What was McNaughton and how did the McNaughton Rule come into being? The name McNaughton came from the son of A Glasgow wood turner who was deluded that there was conspiracy against him when the catholic priests sent spies to harass him. It is from these encounters that the McNaughton Principle came into being. The rule in based on understanding what is right and wrong. It is a test of the two concepts, i.e. "knowing right and wrong by oneself in the course of their actions" (Asokan, 2007). The idea of uncontrollable impulses was not considered an important item. This rule was the standard test that was used by the jury after listening to a medical report. Thus, there was a presumption of sanity unless the defence proved otherwise. The US and the UK adopted the McNaughton Rule and still use it to handle cases to date in many states (The 'insanity defense' and diminished capacity, 2017). What other tests of insanity exist? Define them

Durham Rule

This was man who had been arrested and convicted several times. He had also been admitted in several mental institutions severally since the age of 17. Despite the ruling against him in 1953to the effect that the defence failed to prove that he didn't know what he was doing, the appellate judge thought otherwise. This served as the beginning of the end to the McNaughton Rule. The judge used existing research to declare that the McNaughton rule was obsolete and misleading. He pointed out that exiting relevant research disproved the assumptions in the rule. The Judge overturned the conviction and put in place a new Rule. This was then called the Durham Rule. The rule points out that an accused person is not responsible criminally if his act of lawlessness was born of mental disease of defect (The 'insanity defense' and diminished capacity, 2017)

The US Federal Rule

The Insanity Defence Act at federal courts new requires the defence to show clearly that they were not in charge of their faculties at the point of committing the unlawful act. This approach is viewed as retrogressive and a return to the old standard. It also came with the Insanity Defence Reform...
...

It has guidelines for sentencing defendants with a history of mental illness (The 'insanity defense' and diminished capacity, 2017).
Compare and Contrast these tests? Examine this in light of John Hinckley what happened here. Is one test "better" than the other? Why? What new laws came into being, after Hinckley?

John Hinckley tried to assassinate President Ronald Reagan outside a Washington D.C Hotel in 1981. This drew a lot of attention as expected and notoriety perception towards John Hinckley. The villain was arrested at the scene of crime. He later claimed that he acted out of love for the then American president. According to the New York Times he stated that he was in love with Forster like Romeo and Juliet. He was later tried. He was acquitted because he was found to be insane. He was sent to a psychiatry facility for help (Biography.com Editors, 2017).

The McNaughton Rule was adopted in the US and UK and was applied to judge the standard of right and wrong for many years. In fact, the rule is used as a standard of insanity test in nearly half of the states in the USA. The Durham Rule on the other hand made use of scientific research to handle cases of insanity in court. It was a departure for legal formalisms of the McNaughton Rule. Scientific explanation was the basis for judgement. Controversies emerged and threw the Durham Rule into the back banner. The basis of the Durham Rule was that punishment is meant to deter criminal tendencies. If one cannot differentiate between right and wrong, applying the law rigidly as it is serves no purpose (Francone, 2016).

Which test does New York State use? Is this a successful defense - why or why not? Explain.

New York applies Model Penal Code Rule. The rule places the burden of proof on the defendant (The Insanity Defense Among the States, 2017). The rule gives the legislative authorities the freedom to choose between wrongfulness and criminality language options. Thus, the legislative bodies have the liberty to use more legalistic view of right and wrong. They may also apply a different standard in the form of morally inspired understanding of right and wrong. There are complications that arise…