From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been assessed as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 McNaughton Rules 2 Non Compos Mentis 2.1 Proposal to merge 2.2 M'Naghten rules? 2.3 US Section 2.4 Rewrite

[edit] McNaughton Rules

I had a little trouble locating this article because of the name difference. In class, it was spelled "McNaughton" instead of "M'Naghten". This may keep some from finding the article easily. All of the legal websites that I have seen spelled it "McNaughton". Maybe this could be listed under both titles for easy access.

--J. Harbin 02:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well there are quite a few differing spellings for M'Naghten: McNaughtan, MacNaughten (Queen Victoria's spelling), McNaughton, MacNaghten, just to name a few. These spellings aren't mere typos, as they've been recorded in official correspondences, in court documents and historical texts, all under different spellings. M'Naghten is the spelling used in this wikipedia article probably because that was the spelling used as the official title of the case, Queen v. M'Naghten, in 1843. But to create a redirect under a different spelling, as you suggested, would conflict with existing articles with spelling. A cursory search revealed a Andrew McNaughton, John McNaughton and a Kevin McNaughton. Which "McNaughton" redirect trumps? It would likewise be difficult to make a disambiguation page for that spelling, because then we'd have to make it for all the many different spellings. I do understand your concern that somebody who is looking for information on Daniel M'Naghten and the M'Naghten rules may have difficulty finding it without the correct spelling, but perhaps another wikipedian could suggest a feasible solution, I can't think of any good ideas. Taco325i 04:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Jharbin meant McNaughton rules, which is a redirect that didn't exist until I created it. BTW, I have made use of Category:Redirects from misspellings. Should I correct this to Category:Redirects from alternate spellings? Robert A.West (Talk) 04:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In the case of just McNaughton, there could be a dab page for the last name, and both the bio/case and the rules could be entries. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non Compos Mentis

not sure where to add this, but the latin term for this is "Non Compos Mentis" 63.226.28.130 18:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You should consider adding it to the page on insanity as the general non-technical Latin tag for the condition. It has no relevance on this page. David91 19:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge

I can see a case for merging M'Naghten with Daniel M'Naghten. Both are non-technical descriptions of an old case and its historical context. However, there are two objections to merging that material into M'Naghten Rules. Wiki has an on-going, albeit low level, policy of creating a database of case law. The idea is to create a body of significant cases that can be referred to from multiple pages, thereby reducing the redundancy of continually reproducing case notes and references. The M'Naghten case is sufficiently important in all common law jurisdictions that the case report more than justifies its own page. Secondly, the M'Naghten Rules page is a technical law page and it would disrupt the flow of legal content to interpolate historical and other material irrelevant to the the law. David91 04:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep it granular - separate articles. Some people will be interested in the technical legal stuff, some in Robert Peel. Admitedly there is little known about the man but the legal article could be quite long and detailed. Seperate articles also makes it easier for categorisation. You either finish up with M'Naghten Rules under Category:1865 deaths or Daniel M'Naghten under Category:Criminal defenses. (you know what I mean). Obviously, take detailed legal stuff out of biographical article and vice versa Wikipedia is not paper so there is no cost in extra articles. Cutler 10:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be that we need two articles: Daniel M'Naghten and The M'Naghten rules. (see Talk:M'Naughten sic. i.e. a bio/case type article and a law article. It's on my to-do list. Avraham 18:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There is already a Daniel M'Naughten article, and I will make sure it links appropriately to here. This article is the "project legal" page but if you see below, it needs to fit against insanity (defense). This, I will get to. --Rodhullandemu 01:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M'Naghten rules?

I've always heard this referred to as the M'Naghten test. Should that be the name instaed of rules? Avraham 18:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well,, that makes me the polar opposite because I have never heard the Rules described as a "test". In which country did you study your law? David91 18:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

US. Though a Google search gives about 10,000 results for "M'Naghten rule", about 500 something for M'Naghten test, and about 732 for "M'Naghten rules." So I think I stand throroughly corrected on the popularity of test over rules, it makes me wonder if you shouldn't rename the page to M'Naughten rule. Avraham 18:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that the Rules are a test of insanity which is why there may be some confusion, but I can give you an absolute assurance that the title of this page is correct. David91 18:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed this article for the first time. Having this as the primary article is simply erroneous. The correct usage is singular M'Naghten Rule or McNaughten Rule (the latter being the predominant US usage). Rather than redirect here, the various spellings should redirect to the singular, such as M'Naghten rule. ... Kenosis 23:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, historically they are referred to as "Rules" because they arose from a set of questions posed to the judges of the House of Lords. There is no one rule as such. I see there's already a redirect from M'Naghten rule to M'Naghten rules so I don't think anything is gained by changing the name of the topic. I'd have thought that anyone looking for this topic might already be aware of the options anyway. --Rodhullandemu 19:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Mattisse 01:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US Section

The wording--especially the part with the bolded letters--is extremely confusing. I'm not a legal scholar, so I don't know how to fix it without introducing errors, but somebody really should work on it. Samer 20:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This section should really move to Insanity defense with a reference back here. I'll do it when I get time and have bookmarked it. --Rodhullandemu 19:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I've undertaken a major rewrite of this article to (a) put the Rules in a historical legal context, (b) address their weaknesses, (c) rationalise the major principles of the Rules & illustrate with case law, and (d) remove duplicated & unnecessary verbiage. The Daniel M'Naghten article itself should have a link here to explain the result of his actions; the sections here on US law & Sentencing should move to the Insanity defense article. In this way (a) the Rules sit within their own historical context together with explanatory caselaw (b) specific jurisdictional differences can properly be dealt with in Insanity defense, and (c) Daniel M'Naghten retains his historical perspective without being bogged down by legal technicalities. Hope everyone's happy with that. Late here, will finish tomorrow. --Rodhullandemu 01:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am. --Mattisse 01:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)