Which rule replaced the Durham Rule and requires a stricter standard based on the defendant's mental state?

The Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA) is the rule that replaced the Durham Rule and established a stricter standard for determining a defendant's mental state in relation to criminal responsibility. The IDRA was enacted in response to perceived leniencies in the Durham Rule, which allowed individuals to be found not guilty by reason of insanity if their unlawful act was the product of mental illness.

Under the IDRA, the focus shifted to whether the defendant could understand the nature of their actions or comprehend that those actions were wrong at the time of the offense. This change aimed to ensure that an insanity defense could only be claimed when clear evidence demonstrated a severe mental disorder significantly impairing the person's ability to appreciate or control their behavior. This rising emphasis on personal accountability in the legal system marked a significant departure from the broader interpretations allowed by the Durham Rule.

The other choices do present elements relevant to the discussion of mental state in legal contexts, but they either represent different legal standards or concepts of criminal liability that do not address the specific evolution from the Durham Rule to a more stringent criterion like that emphasized in the Insanity Defense Reform Act.