Which rule states that the defendant knew what they were doing was wrong but could not help himself or herself?

• A. McNaughten rule
• B. Concurrence
• C. Strict liability
• D. Irresistible impulse rule

Answer: (D)

This item hinges on an insanity-based defense that focuses on loss of self-control due to mental illness. The irresistible impulse rule says a defendant can be not guilty because, although they knew their conduct was wrong, they could not resist the impulse to commit the act. The crucial idea is a failure of self-control driven by a mental condition, not a lack of knowledge about wrongdoing. So even with acknowledging the act’s wrongfulness, the person is excused because they could not help themselves at the moment.

This differs from the McNaughten rule, which centers on whether the defendant knew the nature or wrongfulness of the act; strict liability crimes ignore mental state entirely; and concurrence deals with the timing of the mental state relative to the criminal act. Thus, the description fits the irresistible impulse rule.