Criminal Law: The Insanity Defense in the District of Columbia

1962 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 143
Author(s):  
Michael D. Bartell
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
District Of Columbia ◽  
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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document