China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Criminal law theory
Published in John Rumbold, Automatism as a Defence in Criminal Law, 2018
He is explicitly rejecting a status defence of insanity, arguing that an alternative framework can accommodate all the justifications for excusing the mentally ill without a specific separate defence. The main practical difficulty in applying such a defence are that the lay jury will not be able to apply their own theories of mind to an accused whose mind may be functioning in an entirely different way. Thus, for this version of the insanity defence to work, it would require testimony by forensic psychiatrists and it would therefore probably be little different from the current insanity defence in practice. In the states of the USA where the insanity defence has been abolished but defendants can argue lack of mens rea due to their psychiatric condition, there is concern. There is some academic debate about the nature, classification and justifications for the insanity defence. It has been argued that it is an excuse, a status defence or a sui generis (Schopp, 1991). The Law Commission debates the merits of these arguments in the recent discussion paper (Law Commission, 2013).
Criminal and civil law for the psychiatrist in England and Wales
Published in John C. Gunn, Pamela J. Taylor, Forensic Psychiatry, 2014
John Gunn, Philip Joseph, RD Mackay, Judge Rod Denyer QC, Oliver Briscoe, David Carson, Don Grubin, John Gunn, Paul Mullen, Peter Noble, Stephen Stanley, Pamela J Taylor
In considering the way a legal system handles these matters, it is as well to remember that ‘the law’ is neither logical nor consistent, nor does it satisfy everyone’s notion of justice. It is human, pragmatic, and has developed by piecemeal legislation, by precedent and by tradition (see Ormerod, 2008 for a good account). In England, it is so pragmatic that it has produced the apparent paradox that all but a tiny handful of mentally abnormal people are found guilty of their antisocial/illegal acts even if they were clearly mentally abnormal at the time of the act, and matters of responsibility and culpability are dealt with as mitigation of sentence. This is probably true even in other legal systems which use the insanity defence more often.
The Law and Crimes Against Children
Published in Lita Linzer Schwartz, Natalie K. Isser, Endangered Children, 2011
Lita Linzer Schwartz, Natalie K. Isser
In general, the insanity defense is based “on the belief that people who lack the ability to reason and exercise free choice should not be held criminally responsible for their conduct and that society is willing to excuse a person who is not culpable and did not make a meaningful choice” (Waldorn, 1990). This does not mean that the act is condoned or seen as justified; only that the defendants may be excused because they did not know what they were doing and could not control their actions. As we shall see in the coming pages, they may indeed be excused from imprisonment, but may be remanded to a mental health institution instead.
Characterizing Contemporary Criminal Responsibility Evaluees Using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF)
Published in International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 2022
Jordan T. Hall, Jay S. Witherell, Yossef S. Ben-Porath
Under U.S. law, criminal conviction normally requires proof of both participation in a criminal act, the actus reus, as well as unlawful intent or mens rea. Courts generally recognize that an individual can lack the capacity necessary to be held criminally responsible for an unlawful act. This principle underlies the insanity defense, an affirmative defense used when a defendant’s mental capacity renders them not criminally responsible for the act. Although specific standards governing the insanity defense differ by jurisdictions, typically they require a mental disease or defect resulting in impaired cognitive or volitional abilities. Cognitive abilities refer to the capacity to accurately perceive reality and act rationally based on that perception, whereas volitional abilities concern the individual’s power to control their behavior (Borum, 2003). A successful insanity defense must establish that the defendant had a severe mental illness or defect at the time of the criminal act, as well as the resulting impaired ability to understand the nature and quality of an unlawful act, appreciate the wrongfulness of the act, or control behavior (Goldstein et al., 2013). As the insanity defense is rarely asserted and is frequently unsuccessful in the limited cases in which it is used, there is a dearth of research examining individuals who are either evaluated for or meet the legal criteria just described. The few existing studies indicate that acquittees typically suffer from chronic, disabling psychotic conditions that have resulted in past psychiatric hospitalizations (Koi & Chauhan, 2018). The majority of these studies used samples collected prior to 2000, indicating a need for more current descriptive research on this population.