DOCSLIB.ORG

Criminal Liability: Insanity and Automatism a Discussion Paper

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Criminal Liability: Insanity and Automatism a Discussion Paper Criminal Liability: Insanity and Automatism A Discussion Paper 23 July 2013 Law Commission Discussion Paper (July 2013) CRIMINAL LIABILITY: INSANITY AND AUTOMATISM © Crown copyright 2013 ii THE LAW COMMISSION The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Right Honourable Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, Chairman Professor Elizabeth Cooke David Hertzell Professor David Ormerod QC Frances Patterson QC The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Elaine Lorimer. The Law Commission is located at Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9LJ. The terms of this paper were agreed on 8 July 2013. The text of this paper is available on the Law Commission’s website at: http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/areas/insanity.htm. Information provided to the Law Commission We are not inviting responses to this discussion paper, but if you provide any information to us in response to it, we may publish it. This includes personal information. For example, we may publish an extract of your response in Law Commission publications, or publish the response in its entirety. We may also be required to disclose the information, such as in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If you want information that you provide to be treated as confidential please contact us first, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic disclaimer generated by your IT system will not be regarded as binding on the Law Commission. The Law Commission will process your personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. iii iv THE LAW COMMISSION CRIMINAL LIABILITY: INSANITY AND AUTOMATISM A DISCUSSION PAPER CONTENTS Paragraph Page GLOSSARY xvi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Our work on the linked topics of unfitness to plead and the 1.4 1 defence of insanity The relationship between the law on unfitness to 1.5 1 plead and the defence of insanity Unfitness to plead 1.7 2 The insanity defence 1.8 2 The way forward 1.10 2 The central question in this paper 1.18 4 The defences of insanity and automatism: the present law 1.23 5 Insanity 1.23 5 Automatism 1.27 5 Problems with the present law 1.30 6 (1) The requirement to prove D’s “act” 1.31 6 (2) The interpretation of “defect of reason” 1.35 7 (3) Disease of the mind 1.37 7 (4) The “nature and quality of the act” 1.48 10 (5) “He did not know he was doing what was wrong” 1.49 10 (6) Incoherence 1.52 11 v Paragraph Page (7) The defence is not available in the magistrates’ 1.54 12 courts if there is no mental element to the offence (8) The law is out of step with medical 1.56 12 understanding (9) The label “insanity” is stigmatising and 1.59 13 inaccurate (10) Burden of proof if the insanity defence is raised 1.63 13 (11) The risk of breach of the ECHR 1.65 14 Victims’ rights 1.65 14 Defendants’ rights 1.70 15 (12) Equality and discrimination 1.73 16 (13) The impact on children 1.77 17 Responses to the Scoping Paper and evidence of 1.80 17 how the defences work in practice Possible new defences 1.84 19 New defence and special verdict of “not criminally responsible by reason of recognised medical 1.86 19 condition” Illustration 1.97 21 Disposal following the new special verdict 1.106 22 Reformed defence of automatism 1.109 23 Prior fault and intoxication 1.115 24 Procedural issues 1.121 25 Burden of proof 1.123 26 Possible defence and special verdict of 1.126 26 developmental immaturity How our provisional proposals would improve the law 1.127 26 Acknowledgements 1.139 27 CHAPTER 2: SHOULD THERE BE AN “INSANITY” DEFENCE 29 AT ALL? No special defence 2.2 29 The arguments against a special defence based on 2.4 29 mental disorder vi Paragraph Page No special defence is necessary or 2.5 30 justifiable Wrong in principle 2.10 32 No reason for distinguishing between 2.15 33 different causes of non-responsibility The arguments for a special defence 2.18 34 1: That if a person is non-culpable because of mental disorder, then that should be the 2.18 34 true ground for the verdict, not the presence or absence of mens rea 2: Public protection requires the court to 2.23 35 have special powers 3: What of cases where the mens rea existed, but resulted from a mental 2.30 37 disorder? 4: The proposal must take account of 2.32 37 defences Conclusion 2.33 38 A mental disorder defence? 2.35 39 The connection with the defence of automatism 2.36 39 Uncertainty about the definition of “mental disorder” 2.43 40 The alternative 2.50 42 The shortcomings of a mental disorder defence 2.52 42 No reason to treat mental disorders 2.53 42 differently from physical disorders Reduced stigma 2.56 43 More appropriate labelling 2.57 43 Appropriate outcomes 2.60 44 Problem to be addressed with the recognised medical condition defence as well as with the mental 2.62 44 disorder defence Conclusion 2.63 45 vii Paragraph Page CHAPTER 3: A NEW DEFENCE OF “NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF RECOGNISED MEDICAL 46 CONDITION” (I): OVERVIEW Introduction 3.1 46 Total lack of criminal capacity 3.2 46 Relevant criminal capacities 3.4 46 Applicable to all offences 3.7 47 Retaining the possibility of a simple acquittal 3.9 47 Burden of proof 3.10 48 The role of expert evidence 3.11 48 “Recognised medical condition” 3.12 48 Non-qualifying conditions 3.14 48 Acute intoxication exclusion 3.15 49 Anti-social personality disorders 3.16 49 The relationship between the new defence and automatism 3.17 49 The Relationship with the law on prior fault and intoxication 3.19 49 A new special verdict 3.21 50 Disposals following the new special verdict 3.22 50 Naming the new defence 3.26 50 CHAPTER 4: A NEW DEFENCE OF “NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF RECOGNISED MEDICAL 52 CONDITION” (II): THE DETAIL The relevant capacities 4.4 52 Practical reasoning/rationally forming a judgment 4.8 53 Conclusion 4.14 55 Capacity to appreciate wrongfulness 4.19 56 What kind of “wrongfulness” is in issue? 4.20 56 Why have a “wrongfulness” limb at all? 4.23 56 Conclusion 4.33 59 Capacity to control physical actions 4.34 59 viii Paragraph Page The arguments for including in the defence an element reflecting the lack of capacity to 4.37 60 control one’s actions Views of other bodies and jurisdictions 4.42 61 Arguments against an element reflecting an 4.48 63 inability to control one’s physical acts Conclusion 4.53 65 “Recognised medical condition” 4.55 65 What is not covered 4.59 66 A question for the court 4.63 67 “Recognised” professionally 4.67 67 Difficulties of diagnosis 4.69 68 Application to children 4.71 69 Difficulties with experts using DSM-IV 4.74 70 and ICD-10 and their successors “Recognised medical condition” as a legal 4.79 71 concept “Recognised medical condition” in the 4.80 72 defence of diminished responsibility Acute intoxication 4.87 74 Antisocial personality disorder 4.93 76 What are personality disorders? 4.94 76 Views of other reform bodies and 4.98 78 jurisdictions Discussion 4.102 79 The role of expert witnesses in the determination of whether a condition is a recognised medical 4.117 82 condition The new defence 4.123 83 Who may raise the issue 4.131 84 The burden of proof 4.135 85 Satisfying the evidential burden 4.136 85 Connections with other defences 4.140 86 Consequences for other alleged perpetrators 4.142 86 ix Paragraph Page Disposals following the special verdict 4.144 87 Hospital orders 4.145 87 Supervision order 4.149 88 Absolute discharge 4.152 89 Disposals for children and young people 4.153 89 Sanctions in the event of breach 4.154 89 Provisional proposals 4.158 91 Table comparing the outcomes of cases under the present 4.169 92 law with outcomes under our proposed defence Flowchart 4.170 94 CHAPTER 5: A REFORMED DEFENCE OF AUTOMATISM 96 The present law 5.2 96 Definition and scope of defence 5.2 96 Categories of automatism 5.11 99 The courts’ general approach to sane automatism 5.18 100 Loss of control 5.22 101 Evidence required to support the defence 5.33 104 (1) Automatism resulting from a disease of the mind 5.36 104 Problems with this category of the present law 5.38 105 Arbitrary classifications 5.39 105 The mismatch between law and medicine 5.45 107 Risk of mis-categorisation 5.46 107 Incoherence in cases of non-physical 5.47 107 external factors Sleepwalking 5.55 110 Our provisional proposal 5.65 113 (a) Redefining the boundary between recognised medical condition and sane 5.65 113 automatism (b) Advantages of the proposal 5.69 114 (2) Automatism caused by an internal factor other than a 5.77 115 disease of the mind x Paragraph Page Problems of the present law 5.83 116 Our proposals 5.86 117 Advantages of our proposals for cases in this 5.87 117 category (3) Automatism caused by an external factor involving 5.89 117 consumption of substances Present law 5.90 117 Problems with the present law 5.99 119 Our provisional proposals 5.102 120 Advantage of our provisional proposals 5.103 120 (4) Automatism caused by an external factor not involving 5.104 120 consumption of substances Problems 5.105 120 Our provisional proposal 5.106 121 The reformed automatism defence 5.108 121 General features 5.108 121 No prior fault 5.111 122 Denial of actus reus or of mens rea? 5.112 122 Total loss of control or loss of effective 5.113 122 control? Conclusion 5.118 123 Relationship to the recognised medical 5.119 123 condition defence Burden of proof 5.121 124 Actions or conduct? 5.122 124 Provisionally proposed defence of automatism 5.123 124 CHAPTER 6: THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE LAW ON PRIOR 125 FAULT AND
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Resource Guide for Families Dealing with Mental Illness
    This resource guide is provided by: NAMI Michigan For more information, please contact us: 921 N. Washington Ave. Lansing, MI 48906 517.485.4049 800.331.4264 [email protected] www.namimi.org www.facebook.com/namiofmi www.twitter/namiofmi Please help NAMI Michigan continue to serve those affected by mental illness by joining or donating to our organization. Fill out and mail the form below or go to www.nami.org and join online. NAMI Michigan Membership & Donations Whenever possible, we will refer you to a NAMI affiliate in your community for membership. If you have a preference, please indicate below. Name_____________________________________________ Address___________________________________________ _________________________________________________ City_________________________ State______ Zip_______ Phone____________________________________________ E‐Mail____________________________________________ Regular Membership $35 _______________________ Includes National, State & Local Affiliate nearest you Open Door $3 min. For those with financial hardship Donation All donations are tax deductible. NAMI Michigan is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization Mail to: NAMI Michigan 921 N. Washington Lansing, MI 48906 THE NAMI MICHIGAN FAMILY RESOURCE GUIDE Mental Illness: A Family Resource Guide was written for and dedicated to families who have a relative with mental illness. The first edition, published in 1988, came about through the initiative of Yolanda Alvarado and other members of NAMI Michigan who saw the need to share what they knew with other families. The original manuscript was written by Carol Rees of NAMI Washtenaw County. Many family members, individuals living with brain disorders and mental health professionals have contributed to revisions over the years with special thanks due to attorney Bradley Geller and Marjorie Hartnett for the section on voluntary and involuntary treatment and to Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Induced Intoxication
    PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA LAW REFORM COMMITTEE Criminal Liability for Self- Induced Intoxication REPORT Ordered to be Printed Melbourne Government Printer May 1999 No 53 Session 1998–99 Parliament of Victoria, Australia Law Reform Committee Melbourne Bibliography ISBN 0-7311-5265-4 Cover Design & Graphics: Paul Angus ii C OMMITTEE M EMBERSHIP CHAIRMAN *Mr Victor Perton, MP DEPUTY CHAIR *Mr Neil Cole, MP MEMBERS *Mr Florian Andrighetto, MP (Chairman Subcommittee) Ms Mary Delahunty, MP *Hon Carlo Furletti, MLC Hon Monica Gould, MLC *Mr Noel Maughan, MP Mr Alister Paterson, MP *Mr Tony Robinson, MP * denotes membership of Criminal Liability for Self-Induced Intoxication Inquiry Subcommittee The Committee’s address is — Level 8, 35 Spring Street MELBOURNE VICTORIA 3000 Telephone inquiries — (03) 9651 3644 Facsimile — (03) 9651 3674 Email — [email protected] Internet— http://www.lawreform.org.au iii iv C OMMITTEE S TAFF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH Mr Douglas Trapnell RESEARCH OFFICER Ms Jenny Baker OFFICE MANAGER Ms Angelica Vergara v vi C ONTENTS Committee Membership........................... ............................................................................................... iii Committee Staff ........................................................................................................................................v Chairman’s Foreword .............................................................................................................................. xi Functions of the Committee...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission (LAW COM
    The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission (LAW COM. No. 82) (SCOT. LAW COM. No. 45) LIABILITY FOR DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS REPORT ON A REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 3(l)(e) OF THE LAW COMMISSIONS ACT 1965 Presented to Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor and the Lord Advocate by Command of Her Majesty June 1977 LONDON HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE €1.60 net Cmnd. 6831 The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission were set up by the Lax Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are- The Honourable Mr. Justice Cooke, Chairman. Mr. Stephen B. Edell. Mr. Derek Hodgson, Q.C. Mr. Norman S. Marsh, C.B.E., Q.C. Dr. Peter M. North. The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr. J. M. Cartwright Sharp and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WClN 2BQ. The Scottish Law Commissioners are- The Honourable Lord Hunter, V.R.D., Chairman. Mr. A. E. Anton, C.B.E. Mr. R. B. Jack. Mr. J. P. H. Mackay, Q.C. Professor T. B. Smith, Q.C. The Secretary of the Scottish Law Commission is Mr. J. B. Allan and its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 IPR. 11 LIABILITY FOR DEFECTIVE PRODUCT§ CONTENTS Paragraph Pc. ,5 e PART I-INTRODUCTION . 1 1 The terms of reference . , . 1 1 The Royal Commission -.- . 3 1 The Strasbourg Convention . 6 2 The EEC Directive . 7 3 Our consultative document . 9 3 Results of consultation . , . 11 4 The need for an early report .
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law
    Part A Bar Examinations 2015 Criminal Law Subject Coordinator: Dr S. Chandra Mohan School of Law, Singapore Management University Singapore Institute of Legal Education Part A Bar Examinations 2015 SINGAPORE INSTITUTE OF LEGAL EDUCATION Part A Bar Examinations 2015 Criminal Law (Version: 14 May 2015) INTRODUCTION The Part A Bar Examination in Criminal Law is designed to test whether overseas law graduates have obtained sufficient knowledge of the fundamental principles of criminal law in Singapore and understand how these are applied within Singapore’s criminal justice system. It is important that students keep in mind the relevant local legislative provisions and the court decisions that have interpreted these provisions (see the detailed Reading List). Singapore’s criminal law is codified and is principally contained in the Penal Code which was enacted in 1870. It is based on the Indian Penal Code and its provisions are not always similar to the English Criminal Law which its drafter, Lord Macaulay, sought to improve. Two core values of such a written Code that students must bear in mind are accessibility of the penal provisions and comprehensibility so that the layman can obtain and understand the law better. The use of ‘explanations’ and ‘illustrations’ in the sections, which give examples of the application of the provisions, are unique to the Penal Code. As the Penal Codes of India and Malaysia are similar to our Code, cases from these jurisdictions are of persuasive value in interpreting identical provisions. There are other statutes which provide for specific offences such as the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Mental Health Law
    Mental Health Law January 2017 Syllabus Professor Tovino University of Houston Law Center Health Law and Policy Institute ______________________________________________________________________ General Course Information Course: Mental Health Law Course No.: 5297 Section No.: 25140 Credits: 2 Classroom: TBD Dates: January 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10, 2017 Time: 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Instructor: Stacey A. Tovino, JD, PhD E-mail: [email protected] Course Description and Objectives This course will examine a variety of civil and administrative issues pertaining to mental health care access, quality, liability, and finance. Particular attention will be given to federal and state mental health parity law and mandatory mental health and substance use disorder law; federal and state laws protecting the confidentiality of mental health and substance use disorder records; federal and state regulation of interventions such as restraint, seclusion, electroconvulsive therapy, and psychosurgery; state law scope of practice issues for mental health professionals, including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, advance nurse practitioners, and counselors; state regulation of involuntary inpatient and outpatient commitment; and civil liability and/or professional discipline for negligent failure to diagnose, negligent misdiagnosis, negligent treatment, negligent referral, sexual and romantic relationships with patients, patient injury following elopement, and patient suicide. Course Materials There are no required or recommended casebooks. All of our course materials, including a variety of federal and state statutes, regulations, and judicial opinions, are on TWEN. Course materials are listed below under Course Schedule. Course Evaluation I will base 100% of your final grade on one anonymous, closed-book, two-hour, final examination, which shall include fifty multiple-choice questions.
    [Show full text]
  • A Legal Response to Colin Holmes
    J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/jme.17.2.86 on 1 June 1991. Downloaded from Journal ofmedical ethics, 1991, 17, 86-88 Psychopathic disorder: a category mistake? A legal response to Colin Holmes Irene Mackay University ofManchester Author's abstract diminished responsibility upon which I propose to comment. Holmes is concerned with a conflict between law and The absence of any established medical or medicine about the problem ofpsychopathy, in particular psychiatric definition of 'moral insanity' or as it relates to homicide. 'psychopathy' is noteworthy in this article by Colin He looksfor a consistent set oflegal principles based on Holmes. It is not clear whether either can be referred to a variety ofmedical concepts and in doing so criticises the correctly as an illness or whether the two could be courtfor its commonsense approach, its disregardfor synonymous. Moral insanity is referred to as 'absence medical evidence andfor employing lay notions of of conscience', 'no capacity for true moral feelings', responsibility and illness. 'depravity', and 'absence of moral scruple'. This commentary explores how Holmes's notionsfit into Psychopathy appears to mean 'total lack ofcopyright. existing legal rules and explains how the court seeks the compunction or consequent moral emotion', 'absence assistance ofmedical evidence when looking at the evidence of conscience', 'inability to experience guilt' and 'lack as a whole to enable it to decide upon issues ofdefence, of respect for the moral claims of others'. which involve legal and not medical concepts. Holmes is concerned with the conflict between law There is a difficulty inherent in this paper, as it seeks to and medicine about what he refers to as the problem of psychopathy.
    [Show full text]
  • In8anitydefense
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. -----= \\ ... .' . HISTORY OF ~~E j' IN8ANITYDEFENSE IN N~ YOR~ sTkrE New Yor)c State l,ibrary Legisl~tive and Governmental Service~ Cultural Education Center , Albany, New York 12230 tj \ \ I" Telephone; (518) 474-3940 -~-------~--------------------- ~--.~ --_.- --------- t .. ;1 HISTORY OF THE INSANITY DEFENSE '.\ IN NHf YORK STATE S-3 by Robert Allan Carter Senior Librarian : , U.S. Department of Justice 89955 August 1982 Nat/onallnstitute of Justice Research Completed February 1982 This document has been reproduced exactly as received fro th ine~~fn ~r organization originating it. Points of view or opinions ~ate~ s ocumen~ ~re those of the authors and do not necossaril ~~~~~~~nt the official position or policies of the National Institute J Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by __ , History~ Of Tnsani ty Defense Carter to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). "·0(.; o 1'. ,. ~~~~~rt~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~e of the NCJRS system';equ/res perm/s- The state Education ,Department does not discrim2nate'on the basis of age, c910r, creed, -disabi.1ity, marital status, veteran statu~, nationa1qrigin, race Or sexl\ _If. This policy is incompliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of. 1972. , 'I Leg is 1at i ve arid Governmenta 1 Serv ices ;, ~ The New York State library "'~, = ~ p, -- - 1 - On January 20, 1843, Oaniel M1Naghten, while attempting to assassinate the English Prime Minister, Sir Robert P~el, instead shot and mortally wounded the Prime Minister's private sec.F-'c:tary, Edward Drummond. At his trial M'Naghten was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
    [Show full text]
  • What Can You Do If Someone with a Serious Mental Illness Refuses Treatment? (Updated March 2014)
    _________________Treatment Advocacy Center Backgrounder______________ What Can You Do If Someone with a Serious Mental Illness Refuses Treatment? (updated March 2014) SUMMARY: Some people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder refuse treatment. The main reason they do so is that they have no awareness of their illness and do not think that they are sick; this is called anosognosia. Some people who refuse treatment can be persuaded to accept it by patiently working with them or by offering them a reward if they do so. Others continue to refuse treatment; in such cases there are a few options which vary by state depending on the laws of that state. The most effective of these options are assisted outpatient treatment (AOT); conditional release; and mental health courts. Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) AOT is a form of outpatient commitment in which mentally ill individuals are told by court order that they can live in the community as long as they follow their treatment plan, but if they do not do so, they can be involuntarily returned to the hospital. It is available in all states except Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Tennessee, and New Mexico. The criteria for being put on AOT varies somewhat by state but usually includes having had a history of not following treatment plans and becoming dangerous to self or others when not being treated. Examples of AOT are Kendra’s Law in New York and Laura’s Law in California. AOT has been shown to be effective in reducing rehospitalizations, incarcerations, victimizations, episodes of violence, and homelessness. Stettin B. An advocate’s observations on research concerning assisted outpatient treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of R. V. Stone with R. V. Parks: Two Cases of Automatism
    ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY A Comparison of R. v. Stone with R. v. Parks: Two Cases of Automatism Graham D. Glancy, MB, ChB, John M. Bradford, MB, ChB, and Larissa Fedak, BPE, MSc, LLB J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 30:541–7, 2002 Both the medical and legal professions recognize that The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Dis- some criminal actions take place in the absence of orders, fourth edition (DMS-IV),3 does not define consciousness and intent, thereby inferring that these automatism, although it does include several diag- actions are less culpable. However, experts enter a noses, such as delirium or parasomnias, that could be legal quagmire when medical expert evidence at- the basis for automatism. tempts to find some common meaning for the terms The seminal legal definition is that of Lord Den- “automatism” and “unconsciousness.” ning in Bratty v. A-G for Northern Ireland: 1 The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines autom- . .an act which is done by the muscles without any control by atism as “Involuntary action. (Psych) action per- the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action, or a convulsion; or an formed unconsciously or subconsciously.” This act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing, seems precise and simple until we attempt to de- such as an act done while suffering from concussion or while 4 fine unconscious or subconscious. Fenwick2 notes sleepwalking. that consciousness is layered and that these layers This was developed by Canadian courts in R. v. Ra- largely depend on subjective behavior that is ill de- bey: fined.
    [Show full text]
  • Intoxication and Legal Defences Quazi Haque & Ian Cumming
    Haque & Cumming Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2003), vol. 9, 144–151 Intoxication and legal defences Quazi Haque & Ian Cumming Abstract Intoxication with alcohol and drugs is commonly associated with criminal offending. The relationship between intoxication and criminal culpability is complex and may be of psychiatric relevance, especially if a mental condition legal defence is being considered. This article outlines the legal issues (such as they apply in England and Wales) of which psychiatrists should be aware when preparing medico-legal opinions about mentally disordered offenders. Intoxication with alcohol or drugs is the obvious Box 1 Other UK jurisdictions theme of certain charges such as drunk and dis- orderly conduct or drink-driving. In other offences, The law in Scotland attaches rather less intoxication may be a factor that can affect or importance to subjective mens rea than that complicate the issue of criminal responsibility. in England and Wales. Most Scottish criminal Approximately 50% of violent offences and charges allege no mental element at all but property offences are committed after drugs or refer only to the proscribed harm. The mens alcohol have been consumed, and although con- rea terms such as recklessness and negligence sumption may not be directly linked to the offence, are often interpreted with an objectivist slant. there is often a strong association between the two. Liability for causing inadvertent harm while Psychiatrists are frequently asked to comment on drunk departs little from normal principles. the effects of intoxication on mental responsibility. The distinction between offences of basic and Although the legal defences of insanity and dimin- specific intent has therefore not developed to ished responsibility are familiar to psychiatrists, the the same extent as south of the border.
    [Show full text]
  • Insane in the Mens Rea: Why Insanity Defense Reform Is Long Overdue
    INSANE IN THE MENS REA: WHY INSANITY DEFENSE REFORM IS LONG OVERDUE Louis KAcHuLIs* ABSTRACT While there have been advances in both the criminal justice system and the mental health community in recent years, the intersection of the two has not seen much progress. This is most apparent when considering the insanity defense. This Note explores the history and public perception of the insanity defense, the defense's shortcomings, and attempts to provide a model for insanity defense reform. I spend the first section of the Note exploring the history of the insanity defense and show where the defense sits today. The Note then examines the public perception of the insanity defense, and the news media's influence on that perception, using two recent events as small case studies. The last section of the Note proposes a new model insanity defense, and a plan to implement it. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................. ..... 246 II. INSANITY DEFENSE - HISTORICAL IMPLICATIONS AND *Class of 2017, University of Southern California Gould School of Law, B.S. Chemical Engineering, North Carolina State University. This Note is dedicated to those in the criminal justice system suffering from mental health issues. While we work as a society to solve the crisis that is mental health, we cannot forget those who are most vulnerable. I would like to thank Professor Elyn Saks for her guidance and direction with this Note, Chris Schnieders of the Saks Institute for his assistance, and lastly, my parents and Brittany Dunton for their overwhelming support. 245 246 REVIEW OF LA WAND SOCIAL JUSTICE [Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law of Mental Illness
    DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW THE LAW OF MENTAL ILLNESS “[D]oing time in prison is particularly difficult for prisoners with men- tal illness that impairs their thinking, emotional responses, and ability to cope. They have unique needs for special programs, facilities, and extensive and varied health services. Compared to other prisoners, moreover, prisoners with mental illness also are more likely to be ex- ploited and victimized by other inmates.” HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, ILL-EQUIPPED: U.S. PRISONS AND OFFENDERS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS 2 (2003), available at http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1003/usa1003.pdf. “[I]ndividuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who have been faced with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, and relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society, based on characteristics that are beyond the control of such individuals and resulting from stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such indi- viduals to participate in, and contribute to, society . .” Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 2(a)(7), 104 Stat. 327, 329 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (2000)). “We as a Nation have long neglected the mentally ill . .” Remarks [of President John F. Kennedy] on Proposed Measures To Combat Mental Illness and Mental Retardation, PUB. PAPERS 137, 138 (Feb. 5, 1963). “[H]umans are composed of more than flesh and bone . [M]ental health, just as much as physical health, is a mainstay of life.” Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146, 1261 (N.D. Cal.
    [Show full text]