# data[].attributes.body
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense#History
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/current-application-of-the-insanity-defense.html
https://archive.org/details/pleainsanityinc00winsgoog

# data[].attributes.body
Graeme Burnet addresses this topic in a neutral way, not hinting at which side of the argument he is on. This I think is an excellent choice on the author's part, because it allows the reader to make his own decision on what he thinks is right. In this particular case, the two sides battling it out in the courtroom are the crown and Mr Sinclair, Roderick Macrae's advocate. Both sides have equally strong arguments, and although there is an outcome, the writer leaves the reader with much to think about, and in my case still a neutral mindset on who should have won the case. The issue addressed in this piece of literature is one that is still debated today by philosophers. Should an insane person receive the same sentence as a mentally healthy person or not? The basis of the insanity plea is that the defendant was not responsible for their actions due to a psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act. Although the accused does not simply get relieved of their sentence, many believe that

# data[].attributes.body
The concept of not being considered responsible for actions because of insanity has existed since the times of the Ancient Romans and Greeks. However it is only in the past few centuries that it has become an eligible factor in the courtroom. In 1500, juries could acquit the insane and make necessary a separate civil procedure. In 1724, the first transcript of an insanity trial was recorded. (Walker 1985) It was a long time after that, during the case of Mr M'Naghten, that new rules were put in place. The M'Naghten Rules of 1843 basically stated that the plea of insanity was defined by the fact that the defendant could not appreciate the nature of his actions during the commission of the crime. More recently in 1986, the US government held the common law that an insane person could not be executed. Furthermore, a person under the death sentence was entitled to a competency evaluation before trial. According to an eight state study, this form of defence is used in less than 1% of all court cases in the USA and those to do use it only have a 26% success rate. Of all those who succeeded, 90% of the accused had been previously diagnosed with mental health problems.

# data[].attributes.body
The book His Bloody Project is not your everyday fiction novel. It is comprised of several parts, including a memoir of the murderer, the transcript from the court case and witness statements. Graeme Burnet, the author, manages to enthral the reader throughout the book, making even the court case transcript intriguing throughout. However it is not the book itself that this essay is about. The fascinating case of Roderick Macrae proves to be a tricky one, with his advocate going for the plea of insanity to save him from the gallows. What makes the case interesting is that the culprit himself admits to his crimes and makes this very clear by issuing a statement to the jury. This means that the court case is purely debating the sentence, not whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. Although the insanity plea is less common today, because of the death sentence becoming much more rare, it is still an interesting topic and one worth writing about.

# data[].attributes.body
Graeme Burnet uses the platform of a brutal triple murder in the 19th century to get the reader thinking about the insanity plea and its effects on criminal cases. But the question that the writer stresses throughout the book is whether insanity should or should not affect the sentencing of a guilty criminal.

# data[].attributes.body
Mr Graeme Burnet leaves the reader with an issue at hand which most people can still not agree on. Should being mentally unfit for trial affect a criminal's sentence? The problem with this defence was how inefficient it was. With a 26% success rate, it was hardly ever used, and if so only on previously diagnosed mentally ill people. But that doesn't change the fact that it did occasionally succeed, and that fact cannot be ignored. I am still left with a neutral perspective on the matter and can't decide whether to support the equal sentencing of mentally sound and mentally ill people, or to give insane people different treatment

# data[].attributes.body
Why the author addressed this topic and how successful he was

# data[].attributes.body
Under some circumstances, if a mentally ill defendant is found "not guilty by reason of insanity," it excuses that person from the legal responsibility for his or her criminal behaviour. This is true even though the person actually committed the crime or, in legal terminology, is "culpable" of the crime. People who have succeeded with the plea of insanity are not simply released, they can be kept in mental hospitals for even longer than their original prison sentences.

# data[].attributes.body
According to an eight-state study, the insanity defence is used in less than 1% of all court cases and, when used, has only a 26% success rate.[ Of those cases that were successful, 90% of the defendants had been previously diagnosed with mental illness.

# data[].attributes.body
- This concept has existed since the Ancient Greeks and Romans
- King Edward the second declared that a person was insane if their mental capacity was no more than of a "wild beast"
- The first complete transcript of an insanity trial dates back to 1724
- From 1500 onwards, juries could acquit the insane, and detention required a separate civil procedure (Walker, 1985)
- The M'Naghten rules of 1843 basically stated that the defence was defined by the fact that the defendant could not appreciate the nature of his actions during the commission of the crime.
- In 1986 the US court held the common law that an insane person could not be executed
- Furthermore, a person under the death sentence was entitled to a competency evaluation

# data[].attributes.body
The insanity defence, also known as the mental disorder defence, is a defence by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to an episodic or persistent psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act. This is contrasted with an excuse of provocation, in which defendant is responsible, but the responsibility is lessened due to a temporary mental state.