Criminal Law. Trial. Prosecution's Failure to Disclose Psychiatric Opinion Favorable to Accused Vitiates Conviction Although Insanity Defense Is Not Raised at Trial. Ashley v. Texas (5th Cir. 1963)

1964 ◽  
Vol 77 (8) ◽  
pp. 1528
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Insanity Defense

The Abolition of the Insanity Defense in Sweden and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piers Gooding ◽  
Tova Bennet
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Insanity Defense ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Legal Capacity ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
Substantive Equality ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
Due Process Rights

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) may require the abolition of the insanity defense and similar “special defenses” in criminal law. Proponents argue that abolishing the defense would advance efforts to fully recognize the legal capacity of persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others; detractors suggest it would compound the substantive inequality of an already marginalized population. This paper seeks to accelerate this debate with reference to Swedish criminal law, which saw the abolition of the insanity defense in 1965. Neither side of the debate appears to have considered the anomaly of Swedish criminal law. Equally, Swedish legislators appear to have overlooked CRPD-based considerations. Instead, Sweden seems likely to reintroduce the insanity defense following long-standing domestic criticism. This paper brings together developments in Sweden and international human rights law, and draws out conceptual and practical lessons in the quest for due process rights and substantive equality for people with disabilities in criminal law.

The Insanity Defense: Effects of Abolition Unsupported by a Moral Consensus

1984 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 471-500
Author(s):  
Lynnette S. Cobun
Keyword(s):  
Moral Judgment ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Insanity Defense ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
The Face ◽  
Diminished Responsibility

AbstractThe insanity defense reflects the moral judgment that some criminal defendants do not deserve criminal sanctions because of mental incapacity. This Note examines the alternative formulations, such as guilty but mentally ill and diminished responsibility, that some states have enacted in the face of growing controversy over the insanity defense. It observes that the alternatives, if used in lieu of the insanity defense, distort the criminal law and do not comport with the legal doctrine of responsibility, which eschews punishing mentally ill defendants. The Note concludes that the insanity defense should not be abolished unless the moral consensus changes regarding the criminal responsibility of mentally ill defendants.

scholarly journals Madness and Revolution: The Impact of Radicalism on the Treason Trial of James Hadfield

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Austin Nolen
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
French Revolution ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal History ◽  
Insanity Defense ◽  
Causal Connection ◽  
Social Unrest ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
The Impact ◽  
George Iii

The insanity defense is a doctrine in the criminal law which excuses from punishment defendants who commit crimes as the result of serious mental illness. However, the sorts of mental illness that qualify for the defense, as well as the causal connection required between the illness and the act, have varied widely across Anglo-American legal history. This thesis argues that historians have not sufficiently considered the role that radicalism and social unrest have played in shaping the defense, and explores the 1800 treason trial of James Hadfield for the attempted assassination of King George III, where government fears of the French Revolution and associated English radicals helped to reshape the insanity defense.

scholarly journals Proving The Insanity Defense in The Enforcement of Criminal Law in Indonesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 670
Author(s):  
Priastami Anggun Puspita Dewi
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Insanity Defense ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Regulations ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Psychological Condition ◽  
Criminal Offender ◽  
Made In

Criminal liability is a manifestation of the perpetrator for his or her crime. Article 44 (1) of the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP) explains that the insanity defense may release a perpetrator from conviction. For this research, the utilized research method was normative legal research, by which legal regulations are examined and the results neither reject nor accept a hypothesis, but give prescriptions for what should be proposed. The results of this research showed that first, insanity defense can release a criminal offender from conviction. This is because the perpetrator is unable to consciously understand that his or her actions are against the law, and that person cannot be held with criminal liability. Second, the construction of a verdict to declare whether or not a person qualifies for the insanity defense must be made in advance of his or her psychological condition, to decide if it is appropriate for the perpetrator to be convicted.Keywords: Proving; Insanity Defense; Enforcment of Crimina Law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document