Free Practice Question
RC · Reading Comprehension
705-805
Short Passage - Humanities
Reading Passage
The insanity defense in legal proceedings follows from the assumption that the great majority of people freely choose to follow the law. However, some individuals—those determined to be lacking in the appropriate mental capacities—are unable to choose to follow the law. This scenario presents a conundrum for legal theorists. If someone is truly unable to follow the law, is it just to imprison him and punish him for something he did involuntarily?
Insanity as a legal defense traces back to a case in 1843, when a man named Daniel M’Naghten attempted to assassinate the British Prime Minister. M’Naghten’s laywers claimed that the would-be assassin was being persecuted and was driven to commit the crime. Prosecutors argued that in order to plan and execute the assassination, M’Naghten must have been in a rational state of mind. After several experts testified that M’Naghten was insane, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity, touching off a spirited legal discussion on the merits of the insanity plea. From these deliberations emerged what became known as the M’Naghten test, by which jurors were asked to judge the sanity of a defendant based on two questions. First, did the defendant know what he was doing when he committed the crime? And second, did the defendant understand that his actions were wrong? Jurors were instructed in all cases to presume the defendant was sane and only acquit on the basis of the insanity if “it was clearly proved that the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason 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 what he was doing was wrong.”
Later versions of the M’Naghten test included an addendum that stated in cases in which the accused knew his actions were wrong, he could be acquitted if the jury determined he acted on the basis of an irresistible impulse. The implication was that some mental illnesses are so powerful that they cause people to act in ways that they know are wrong.
Insanity as a legal defense traces back to a case in 1843, when a man named Daniel M’Naghten attempted to assassinate the British Prime Minister. M’Naghten’s laywers claimed that the would-be assassin was being persecuted and was driven to commit the crime. Prosecutors argued that in order to plan and execute the assassination, M’Naghten must have been in a rational state of mind. After several experts testified that M’Naghten was insane, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity, touching off a spirited legal discussion on the merits of the insanity plea. From these deliberations emerged what became known as the M’Naghten test, by which jurors were asked to judge the sanity of a defendant based on two questions. First, did the defendant know what he was doing when he committed the crime? And second, did the defendant understand that his actions were wrong? Jurors were instructed in all cases to presume the defendant was sane and only acquit on the basis of the insanity if “it was clearly proved that the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason 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 what he was doing was wrong.”
Later versions of the M’Naghten test included an addendum that stated in cases in which the accused knew his actions were wrong, he could be acquitted if the jury determined he acted on the basis of an irresistible impulse. The implication was that some mental illnesses are so powerful that they cause people to act in ways that they know are wrong.
The author of the passage would most likely agree that
Answer Choices
Correct answer marked belowIt is difficult to reconcile traditional notions of justice with certain conceptions of mental illness.
Correct
B
Jurors should always presume a defendant is sane unless otherwise directed by the judge.
C
There are no mental illnesses that cause people to act in ways that they know are wrong and yet are powerless to resist.
D
The M’Naghten test will continue to evolve as more research is done on the nature of mental illnesses.
E
A person who is acquitted of a crime by reason of insanity is still responsible for his actions.
See the full step-by-step explanation
You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.
Track your performance and improve
Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.
Explanation
Unlock the full explanation
Create a free account to reveal the correct answer, see the step-by-step explanation, and start tracking your GMAT progress.
Comments
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts and help others understand it better.
Sign in to commentWhat this question tests
What it tests
Your ability to understand a passage, its structure, and what the author is really saying. At the 705-805 level, accuracy and speed both matter.
Common trap
Answering from memory or outside knowledge instead of strictly from the passage.
Details
Difficulty
705-805
Type
RC
Category