Insanity Inquiry Worksheet Case File: The Insanity Inquiry
Legal History & Ethics | Unit 4: Criminal Responsibility
Document No.
ID-1843-MN
Student Name:
Date:
Exhibit A
The M'Naghten Rule (1843)
"Every man is to be presumed to be sane... until the contrary be proved to [the jury's] satisfaction; and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as 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."
Analysis Task: Circle the two specific conditions that must be proven for a successful insanity defense according to this rule.
Quick Verdict
The Moral Dilemma
"Is it more dangerous for a society to punish a person who truly cannot understand their crime, or to allow a person who committed a crime to avoid prison by claiming a 'defect of reason'?"
Your Initial Stance: Briefly argue for one side. What is your primary concern?
The M'Naghten Rule was created following the acquittal of Daniel M'Naghten, who attempted to assassinate the British Prime Minister.
Trial Opener Slides Classified: Case #843
MIND ON
TRIAL
10-Minute Opening Inquiry
Exhibit A
The M'Naghten Rule
1843 Legal Standard
"...it must be clearly proved that... the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as 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."
Check your worksheet. What are the two conditions for insanity?
The Prompt
The Moral Dilemma
"Is it more dangerous for a society to punish a person who truly cannot understand their crime..."
"...or to allow a person who committed a crime to avoid prison by claiming a 'defect of reason'?"
Punish the Sick
Public Safety
Action Phase
Total Time Remaining
06:00
1
Source Check
Analyze the text. Identify the "Right/Wrong" test criteria. Circle them on your page.
2 Minutes
2
Quick Verdict
Commit to a stance. What is your primary concern? Write your argument.
4 Minutes
Be prepared to defend your stance in 60 seconds.
Opener Brief Teacher Guide Mind on Trial: Facilitation Brief
10-Minute Opening Activity Guide
Duration
10:00
Objective
To introduce students to the legal standard for insanity and spark a debate on the ethical balance between criminal responsibility and mental health within the first 10 minutes of class.
Materials Needed
Insanity Inquiry Worksheet
Trial Opener Slides
Timer (on slides)
Pacing Breakdown
00:00-02:00
The Setup & Reading
Distribute the Insanity Inquiry Worksheet . Read Exhibit A (M'Naghten Rule) aloud while students follow along. Focus on the archaic language and the high bar it sets for "insanity."
02:00-04:00
Source Analysis (Self)
Students work individually to circle the criteria. Key to look for: "Not to know the nature and quality of the act" AND "Did not know he was doing what was wrong."
04:00-08:00
The Moral Verdict (The Debate)
Present The Moral Dilemma on the screen. Give students 2 minutes to write their stance on the worksheet. Use the remaining 2 minutes for a "lightning round" of 3-4 responses.
08:00-10:00
The Pivot
Transition to the day's main lesson. Explain that while the M'Naghten Rule is 180 years old, it still forms the basis of the insanity defense in nearly half of the United States today.
Facilitation Tips
If students are stuck...
"Think about a small child taking a cookie. They might know they are taking a cookie (nature of act) but not know it is 'wrong' because nobody told them. Is that the same as a crime?"
Common Misconception
Many students believe 'not guilty by reason of insanity' means the person goes home. Clarify that it usually means commitment to a psychiatric facility, often for longer than a prison sentence.
M'Naghten Analysis Key
The "Right/Wrong" Test Criteria:
The defendant did not understand the nature and quality of the act (e.g., they thought they were squeezing a lemon, not a person's neck).
The defendant did not know the act was wrong (legal or moral incapacity).
