Irresistible impulse rule
The irresistible impulse rule is a legal standard used to assess insanity in criminal cases, focusing on whether a mental disease prevents defendants from controlling their actions. This rule expands the traditional insanity defense, which primarily examines cognitive understanding of wrongdoing, as established by the earlier M'Naghten rule. It recognizes that some individuals, due to mental disorders, may understand their actions but lack the ability to restrain themselves from committing wrongful acts.
Historical context shows that the irresistible impulse rule gained traction in the United States during the nineteenth century, with various jurisdictions acknowledging that mental abnormalities could severely impair one’s volitional control. Notably, cases like the one involving Lorena Bobbitt highlight the complexity of such defenses, where a defendant's mental state can lead to actions driven by uncontrollable impulses rather than malicious intent.
While the rule has been adopted by several states, its application has seen challenges, particularly following high-profile cases that raised concerns about the practicality of distinguishing between true irresistible impulses and mere impulses that could be resisted. As a result, many jurisdictions have moved away from this standard, with only a few states continuing to allow it as a basis for an insanity defense today.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Irresistible impulse rule
DEFINITION: Test of legal insanity that focuses on whether mental disease impairs defendants’ ability to exercise control over their conduct.
SIGNIFICANCE: The courts’ acceptance of the irresistible impulse rule widened the scope of the insanity defense in the United States to include those who, owing to mental disease, cannot restrain themselves.
During the nineteenth century, a number of American jurisdictions began adopting what became known as the irresistible impulse rule, recognizing that some defendants are, because of some mental abnormality, deprived of their power of choice or their ability to refrain from wrongful conduct. One type of case cited by jurists and psychiatrists at that time was that of a mother suffering from melancholia (extreme depression) who kills her children and attempts to kill herself. She may know what she is doing, but she cannot resist the “morbid impulse” stemming from her mental state. Such a person does not seem to be deserving of criminal punishment, given that she did not perform her actions with wrongful intention.
The M’Naghten rule was the first formal test of legal insanity, adopted in England in 1843 and soon after in almost all US states. It focused on cases of insanity that impaired the cognitive capacities of the accused, especially their knowing what they were doing or that what they were doing was wrong. The irresistible impulse rule, in contrast, is directed at cases in which the defendants’ insanity impairs their volitional capacities, so that their power to exert control over themselves is eliminated. Jurists and psychiatrists had criticized the M’Naghten test as too simple and narrow, and had urged that the law take into account the complex nature of the human mind. They argued that some forms of insanity deprive persons not of their ability to know but rather of their power to choose, and the law should recognize this.
In 1993, a Virginia woman named Lorena Bobbitt cut off her husband's penis. In her 1994 trial, she claimed that she was the victim of spousal abuse and sexual battery. Bobbitt was eventually found not guilty on reasons of temporary insanity caused by an irresistible impulse to injure her husband.
By the early twentieth century, about one-half of the US states had adopted the irresistible impulse rule as a supplement to the M’Naghten test. Unlike for the latter, no single “classic” formulation exists for the irresistible impulse rule. In a 2007 case in Virginia, the court stated that “the irresistible impulse defense is available where the accused’s mind has become so impaired by disease that he is totally deprived of the mental power to control or restrain his act.”
The irresistible impulse test never took hold in Great Britain, where judicial skepticism centered on two issues. The first is that all humans, sane and insane, are subject to strong impulses. If they are too weak to resist on their own, the law, with its threat of punishment, provides them with an additional incentive. A second concern raised was that of the practical difficulty for juries and forensic psychiatrists of distinguishing between irresistible impulses and impulses that are not resisted.
The of John Hinckley in 1982 for the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan prompted changes in federal law in the United States that revealed skepticism about volitional impairment. The federal Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 eliminated the volitional impairment component from the insanity defense. Almost all US states followed suit with laws of their own, with only six states retaining some type of irresistible impulse or volitional impairment test. By 2023, four states—Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Virginia—still used the irresistible impulse in conjunction with the M’Naghten test to determine the possibility of temporary insanity.
Bibliography
Maeder, Thomas. Crime and Madness. Harper & Row, 1985.
Meyer, Robert G., and Christopher M. Weaver. Law and Mental Health: A Case-Based Approach. Guilford Press, 2006.
Rogers, Richard, and Daniel W. Shuman. Fundamentals of Forensic Practice: Mental Health and Criminal Law. Springer, 2005.
Sanabria, Linda. "The Irresistible Impulse Test." FindLaw, 5 Dec. 2023, www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/the-irresistible-impulse-test.html. Accessed 16 Aug. 2024.
Sorrentino, Renee, and Meghan Musselman. "Battered Woman Syndrome: Is It Enough for a Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity Plea?" Psychiatric Times, vol. 37, no. 7, 24 July 2019, www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/battered-woman-syndrome-it-enough-not-guilty-reason-insanity-plea. Accessed 16 Aug. 2024.