英格兰对于Mcnaghten规则的不满意
减轻刑事责任的国防可以追溯到十九世纪陪审团的措施，在安乐死的背景下所做的决策，他们保持对减轻环境的观点。[1]在案例中，HM倡导V.丁沃尔[2]最初阐述减少责任的辩护。在这种情况下，丁沃尔被宣判了十年，由于被指控杀人。他是一个酒鬼，且有“震颤性谵妄”的病症。Deas主人要求审判团可以收回对于肇事司机（杀人）的判决，如果被告的心境被他们认为是情有可原的，尽管不足以因为精神不正常的理由判决无罪”。
苏格兰和英格兰关于精神错乱的法律在十六世纪是相同的，自从“1674 部分精神错乱的概念”来减缓和缓和像这样的惩罚。[4]
因此“弱点”[5]是“一种心态近乎，虽然不等同于精神错乱”或者“部分精神不正常”允许被告人免于死刑。沃克认为，到了1909年，案例开始使用“减少责任”的特殊短语。
“到了十九世纪三十年代”
Englands Dissatisfaction With Mcnaghten Rules Law Essay
The defence of diminished responsibility can be traced back in the ninetieth century from the practice of the juries to return the verdicts in the context of mercy killing, keeping in view the mitigated circumstance. [1] In the case HM Advocate v. Dingwall [2] , initially enunciated the diminished responsibility defense, in this case the Dingwall sentenced for 10 years on the charge of homicide, he was heavy drinker and had fits of “delirium tremens”. “Lord Deas instructed to the jury that they could return a verdict of culpable homicide (manslaughter) if the defendant’s state of mind was considered by them to be an extenuating circumstance although not sufficient to warrant an acquittal on the grounds of insanity”.
Scottish and English law on insanity was same in the sixteenth century, since “1674 a notion of partial insanity” to lessen and moderate the punishments” of the persons whose reasoning faculties were impaired. [3] Thus:
“Since the law grants a total impunity to such as are absolutely furious, it should by the rule of proportions lessen and moderate the punishments of such”. [4]
Therefore “weakness of mind”, [5] “a state of mind bordering on, though not amounting to, insanity” [6] or “partial insanity” [7] were allowed the accuse to avoid the sentence of murder. Walker asserts that, by 1909 the cases begin to use, the specific phrase “diminished responsibility”.
“By the nineteen-thirties the stage had been reached at which the defense of insanity was rarely offered in a Scots court to a charge of murder. Either the accused was found “insane in bar of trial” or he pleaded diminished responsibility”. [8]
In England, by 1883 from the judgment of the earlier case, dissatisfaction with the Mc’Naghten Rules (pronounced, and sometimes spelled, McNaughton) for insanity defence led to the recommendations for an alternate defence such as “diminished responsibility”. [9] But this time this concept was not appreciated and again discussed in 1950 with regard to the capital punishment but the Royal commission (1949-53) rejected it too. In 1956 Heald Committee proposed this defense and later on the basis of this proposal sec. 2 of Homicide Act, 1957 was codified. [10]
Section 2 of Homicide Act, 1957 stated below:
“(1) Where a person kills or is party to the killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts or omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.
(2) On a charge of murder, it shall be for the defense to prove that the person charged is by virtue of this section not liable to be convicted of murder”.
The effect of sec. 2 was to “take over the sort of case which previously would have been accepted by courts as within the Mc’Naghten Rules”. [11] Moreover, studies have indicated that in its initial years was exceptionally effective, that a spacious variation of conditions were considered as satiate the interpretation of this Act while overall percentage of the people taken diminished or insanity did not vary. [12]
In U.S. The Diminished Responsibility Defense.
In U.S. this defense is known as diminished capacity. The diminished capacity principle is applicable to those who are mentally ill and unable to understand the consequences of their act at the time of crime. It is not applicable to every offence, it is only limit
