Talk:Insanity in English law
Latest comment: 12 years ago by 62.49.220.177 in topic Proposed Reforms?
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Insanity in English law article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Insanity in English law has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 24, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the principles of insanity in English law have been described as based on a "now obsolete" belief and "not therefore a satisfactory test of criminal responsibility"? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Several inaccuracies edit
There are several inaccuracies on a cursory reading of this article. The history is incorrect, and the origin of the MacNaughtan Rules is wrong. Also MacNaughtan's name is misspelled! It also misses out several developments in the law. Also Hadfield probably received his head wound at the battle of Lincelles Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Proposed Reforms? edit
While there is a section dedicated to criticisms and attempted reforms there seems to literally no details of reforms other than the name i.e. The Butler Committee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.220.177 (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)