In California was the first state where the diminished capacity defense recognized first time in the case People v. Wells [13]
Insanity and diminished responsibility defense are linked at their ideological hip by men rea. So in order to understand the concept of diminished responsibility firstly, I should have to discuss the insanity defense. As in Pakistan we have the insanity defense for the accused that are suffered from some sort of mental illness and not diminished responsibility defense. At the end of this dissertation paper I will give some suggestion to amend the law on insanity with respect to diminished responsibility.
The concept of “not guilty by reason of insanity” was first time introduced in the era of Prophet (PBUH). But the western world, nearly seven centuries ago, exonerated the individual on the basis of mental illness. [14] In Islam there is comprehensive procedure of compensation with respect of the loss occurred. While the persons who are “insane not liable for the loss”.
In Islamic law, accused is to be considered a guilty of particular forbidden act or omission if he or she did that act or omission with malice intention. Thus, the Shariah invariably link agent’s act with his will or intention.
It was narrated by Umar Ibnu Kahattab (R) he said, the Prophet (s.a.w) said “Every act’s validity is depending on the intention of the doer”. [15]
In another Hadith the Prophet (s.a.w) said
“Acts are dependent on the intentions and everyone will get his reward in consonance with his intention”. [16]
However the seat of will is mind it means intention and decision. For instance, the Arabs when “wishing some one will, say may Allah (s.w.t) protect you, thus if a person proposes to do an act does it, he is intentionally guilt thereof”. [17]
It was narrated by Abu Hurairah (R) he said,
“the Prophet (s.a.w) said, Verily Allah (s.w.t) does not notice into your appearance nor your wealth but He (s.w.t) notices unto your hearts and deeds”. [18]
On the basis of these injunctions we can say that in declaring the liability of the offender for the application of the principle that acts are
