The first recorded statement of the insanity defense can be found in the Code of Hammurabi which dates to around 1772 BC. The Code of Hammurabi is a Babylonian legal code from ancient Iraq, formerly Mesopotamia. Back when it ruled the Roman Empire, the government believed that the condemned were not compos mentis. This means without mastery of mind and not guilty of their criminal actions. Over the years, many different types of tests have been performed to determine whether the defendant was actually insane. The first test was the test of “good and evil”. It derives from religious and biblical concepts. People who could not distinguish between good and evil were considered crazy. If they could not do so they were found guilty of the crime. The next test was the “wild beast test.” In the 1724 British case of “Rex vs. Arnold,” the judge ruled that the defendant be acquitted on grounds of insanity because he did not know what he was doing, behaving as a “wild beast” would act. (Garofolo) The insanity defense was also used in the attempt to assassinate British Prime Minister Robert Peel in 1842. A man named Daniel M'Naghten intentionally killed an aide to a British Prime Minister. He believed he was being persecuted. When the time came for the trial he declared himself insane. The prosecution attempted to prove that the defendant was of sound mind by referring to M'Naghten's behavior in planning and executing the attack. Many doctors testified about the defendant even though they never examined him. They reached conclusions based only on simple hearsay testimony and observation of the defendant's behavior. The prosecution then agreed to drop the case. The defendant was declared insane. Then Queen Victoria and the House of Lords came to light of this case... in the middle of paper... nense at all. The insanity defense is used in only about 1% of cases in the United States and is successful less than 25% of the time. Today many people say that they are crazy to escape punishment for the crime they committed. But this rarely works. Many people abuse the insanity plea thinking it will give them a softer sentence. Many people in the public once the defendant claims to be crazy after committing, for example, a murder, the public becomes very angry. The reason they do this is because in the eyes of the public murder is murder. The only time the public would likely sympathize with a defendant is when he is unable to stand trial due to his psychological problems. The public usually does not agree with the insanity defense and this usually makes them indignant or feel that the defendant was served proper justice. (Collins, Hinkebein and Schorgl)