DOCSLIB.ORG

Empirical Research on the Insanity Defense and Attempted Reforms: Evidence Toward Informed Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Empirical Research on the Insanity Defense and Attempted Reforms: Evidence Toward Informed Policy Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1999 Errata This article entitled 'Empirical Research on the Insanity Defense and At- tempted Reforms: Evidence Toward Informed Policy' by Randy Borum and Solo- mon M. Fulero originally appeared in Volume 23, Number 1 (February 1999). This article was printed with numerous references mistakenly omitted. Reprinted below is how the article should have appeared. Empirical Research on the Insanity Defense and Attempted Reforms: Evidence Toward Informed Policy Randy Borum1 and Solomon M. Fulero2 The paper addresses some common questions about the insanity defense and issues raised by commonly proposed "reforms." The first section begins with a brief descrip- tion of the insanity defense and the reasons for its existence in the law. It then examines some of the popular myths and public misperceptions surrounding the insanity de- fense. The next three sections discuss proposed "reforms" and the empirical research that addresses their effect. These reforms, including various procedural changes in definitions, burden of proof, and expert testimony, the institution of a guilty but mentally ill verdict, and the abolition of the insanity defense itself, are reviewed, along with relevant research findings and policy issues. Finally, the development of sound conditional release programs for criminal defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity is proposed as a reform option which could serve the objectives of enhancing public safety and access to appropriate treatment while continuing to meet the objec- tives of the insanity defense within criminal jurisprudence. Virtually all of us can recount the details of a well-publicized insanity defense case in our home state. For example, on January 26, 1995, a 26-year-old law student named Wendell Williamson armed himself with a rifle he took from his father's house. He then walked through the streets of a college town in North Carolina shooting at people in his path. By the end of this incident, two people were dead 1Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710; e-mail: [email protected]. 2Department of Psychology, Sinclair College and Wright State University School of Medicine, Dayton, Ohio 45402; e-mail: [email protected]. 375 0147-7307/99/0600-0375$16.00/1 C 1999 American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychology Association 376 Borum and Fulero (a university student and a local resident), and several others, including one police officer, were wounded. It quickly came to light in the media that the suspect had been treated for paranoid schizophrenia, but in recent months he had allegedly stopped taking his psychotropic medication. At trial, he put forth a defense of "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI) and was found NGRI by a jury in the county where the shootings took place. During and after the trial there was strong public reaction to the incident, both to the jury's decision and to the insanity defense in general. Two state senators responded by proposing legislation to repeal the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity and replace it with a "guilty but mentally ill" (GBMI) provision. This controversial case, the public reaction to it, and the subsequent attempts to "reform" the insanity defense in North Carolina all mirror what has happened in other states such as Ohio and Arizona (Borum, 1997; Fulero, 1997; O'Connor & Bayer, 1997). This paper addresses some common questions about the insanity defense and issues raised by commonly proposed "reforms." The next section begins with a brief description of the insanity defense and the reasons for its existence in the law. It then examines some of the popular myths and public misperceptions sur- rounding the insanity defense, since they are commonly part of the impetus for, and discourse about, its reform. The subsequent three sections discuss proposed reforms and the empirical research that addresses their effect. These reforms, ranging from various procedural changes to the institution of a GBMI verdict and the abolition of the insanity defense itself, are reviewed, along with relevant research findings and policy issues. Finally, the development of sound conditional release programs for criminal defendants found NGRI is proposed as a reform option which could serve the objectives of enhancing public safety and access to appropriate treatment while continuing to meet the objectives of the insanity defense within criminal jurisprudence. THE INSANITY DEFENSE Doctrine of the Insanity Defense To establish that an individual is guilty of a crime, the state must prove at least two components: first, that the defendant engaged in proscribed conduct or committed the illegal act in question (referred to as actus reus); and second, that the defendant committed this act with criminal intent (referred to as mens rea)3. Different offenses may require different levels of intent. For example, in North Carolina, an indictment for a charge of murder requires a declaration that the defendant killed "willfully and with malice aforethought," whereas that element for man slaughter only requires that the killing be done "willfully." (North Carolina, 1998, §15-144). Similarly, in Ohio, an aggravated murder charge requires that the 3Block's law dictionary defines mens rea as "As an element of criminal responsibility: a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent; guilty knowledge and willfulness" (p. 680). Insanity Defense and Attempted Reforms 377 defendant killed "purposely, and with prior calculation and design," while murder requires only that the killing be done "purposely" (Ohio, 1998, §§2903.01,2903.02). The criminal law assumes that persons act with "free will" and that they should be held responsible for their own behavior (Perlin, 1994). The insanity defense doctrine, however, excepts from criminal responsibility and culpability a narrow class of persons who have some form of severe mental illness or disability which impairs either their cognitive abilities (e.g., the ability accurately to perceive reality and to make rational and reasonable inferences based upon them) or their volitional abilities (e.g., the ability to control their own behavior) in such a way and to such an extent that their will is compromised. Most states use one of two insanity defense standards: the M'Naghten or the American Law Institute Model penal code (ALI) definitions.4 The ALI standard provides that "a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the reqirements of the law" (American Law Institute [ALI], 1962, §4.01). The M'Naghten standard requires proof that at the time of the offense, as a result of a mental disease or defect, the defendant was unable to know the nature or quality of his act or was unable to know that the act was wrong. [See, e.g., Ohio, 1998, §§2901.01(A)(14), 2945.391]. The M'Naghten test is generally considered to be the more narrow and conservative one because it includes only a cognitive component (knowing that one's actions are wrong), whereas the ALI test adds a volitional component (see Wettstein, Mulvey, & Rogers, 1991). Under the insanity defense, persons meeting this narrow definitional exception are not held criminally responsible for behavior that meets these conditions. Because they are not criminally culpable, they are not "guilty" of a crime in the eyes of the law, even if they actually committed the act in question. Many who misunderstand the essence of the insanity defense ask how someone can be called "not guilty" when it is clear that they did the act, since the term "guilty" is generally thought to apply when a person has engaged in some proscribed conduct.5 However, in assigning "guilt," the law is not only concerned with an individual's actions (the actus reus element), but also with an individual's state of mind (mens red) at the time he or she commits an act. For example, the law generally prohibits the inten- tional killing of another person. However, if an individual kills someone because he/she reasonably believes that his/her life is in imminent danger, that individual might not be held criminally responsible for the other person's death. In legal terms, then, that person might be found "not guilty" even though he/she intentionally killed another person. Because those found NGRI are "not guilty" in the legal sense, they are not 4Not all jurisdictions use these definitions; law in the Virgin Islands, in the United States Third Circuit, states that: "All persons are capable of committing crimes or offenses except ... (4) Persons who are mentally ill and who committed the act charged against them in consequence of such mental illness. ... Virgin Islands Code, Title 14, Chapter 1, Section 14. 5In recognition of this issue, Oregon has revised the name of the insanity defense to "guilty except for insanity" (Oregon Revised Statutes 161.295) This idea is one which, arguably, should be adopted in other states as well. 378 Borum and Fulero subject to criminal sanctions for their behavior. However, they are likely to be civilly committed to a psychiatric hospital (see below). This alternative disposition is rooted, in part, in a belief that punishment would not serve as a deterrent, or that one should not be punished for an act that was not performed with criminal intent, and also that treatment is a more appropriate disposition for such persons than imprisonment. Perceptions and Misperceptions of the Insanity Defense The insanity defense is one of the most controversial areas in the criminal law, and is plagued by many myths and public misperceptions. Often, the impetus for insanity defense reform, including calls for the abolition of the insanity defense, arises from concerns that (a) the insanity defense may be overused, (b) it is used almost exclusively in heinous crimes, (c) people who are acquitted as NGRI simply "go free" or are quickly released, and (d) NGRI acquittees, perhaps because of their mental disorder, are particularly dangerous.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “Destroy Every Closet Door” -Harvey Milk
    “Destroy Every Closet Door” -Harvey Milk Riya Kalra Junior Division Individual Exhibit Student-composed words: 499 Process paper: 500 Annotated Bibliography Primary Sources: Black, Jason E., and Charles E. Morris, compilers. An Archive of Hope: Harvey Milk's Speeches and Writings. University of California Press, 2013. This book is a compilation of Harvey Milk's speeches and interviews throughout his time in California. These interviews describe his views on the community and provide an idea as to what type of person he was. This book helped me because it gave me direct quotes from him and allowed me to clearly understand exactly what his perspective was on major issues. Board of Supervisors in January 8, 1978. City and County of San Francisco, sfbos.org/inauguration. Accessed 2 Jan. 2019. This image is of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors from the time Harvey Milk was a supervisor. This image shows the people who were on the board with him. This helped my project because it gave a visual of many of the key people in the story of Harvey Milk. Braley, Colin E. Sharice Davids at a Victory Party. NBC, 6 Nov. 2018, www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/sharice-davids-lesbian-native-american-makes- political-history-kansas-n933211. Accessed 2 May 2019. This is an image of Sharcie Davids at a victory party after she was elected to congress in Kansas. This image helped me because ti provided a face to go with he quote that I used on my impact section of board. California State, Legislature, Senate. Proposition 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Insanity Plea
    Insanity Plea Dr. Mike Aamodt Radford University Updated 11/9/2013 Concept of Mitigation or Diminished Capacity • Consideration for Murder –Intent (1st degree murder) – Reduced capacity – drunk, angry (2nd degree murder) – Reckless, negligent (manslaughter) • Not Guilty due to Self-defense • Guilty but Mentally Ill (GBMI) or Guilty but Insane (GBI) • Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) or Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Disease or Defect – Chronic – Temporary Definition of Insanity Early Thinking • Ancient Hebraic Law Idiots, lunatics, and children below a certain age ought not to be held criminally responsible, because they could not distinguish good from evil, right from wrong, and were thus blameless in the eyes of God and man • Plato’s Laws If a criminal is senile, a child, or is proven insane, he should be held to no more than the payment of civil damages 1 Definition of Insanity Early Thinking • Marcus Aurelius Madness is its own sole punishment • Shakespeare’s Hamlet If I wrong someone when not myself, then Hamlet does it not, Hamlet denies it. Who does it then? His madness. Definition of Insanity Historic Timeline 1226 Perhaps the first recorded consideration of forensic madness • Ralph killed a man • Because he was “out of his wits and senses”, he was sentenced to life in prison rather than death 1265 Henri de Bracton: “An insane person is a person who does does not know what he is doing, is lacking in mind and reason, and is not far removed from the brutes.” 1270 Richard Blofot not released from prison due to madness 1275
    [Show full text]
  • Desert, Democracy, and Sentencing Reform Alice Ristroph
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 96 Article 2 Issue 4 Summer Summer 2006 Desert, Democracy, and Sentencing Reform Alice Ristroph Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Alice Ristroph, Desert, Democracy, and Sentencing Reform, 96 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1293 (2005-2006) This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091.4169/06/9604-1293 THE JOURNALOF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 96, No. 4 Copyright 0 2006 by NorthwesternUniversity, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. DESERT, DEMOCRACY, AND SENTENCING REFORM ALICE RISTROPH" Exactly how much punishment an offender deserves is something of a metaphysical mystery, or so it has appeared to be in the past. A new discourse of desert seeks to close the gap between philosophical theories and everyday intuitions of deserved punishment, using the former to guide and the latter to legitimize sentencing policies that embrace "desert as a limiting principle." This Article examines the operation of desert and finds that in practice, desert has proven more illimitable than limiting. Conceptions of desert are first, elastic: they easily stretch to accommodate and approve increasingly severe sentences. Desert judgments are also opaque: they appear to be influenced in some cases by racial bias or other extralegal considerations,but such bias is cloaked by the moral authority of desert claims.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Los Angeles City Clerk
    _:;ITY OF LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA Office of the JUNELAGMAY CITY CLERK City Clerk Council and Public Services Room 395, City Hall HOLLY L. WOLCOTT Los Angeles, CA 90012 General Information~ (213) 978·1133 Executive Officer Fax: (213) 978-1040 www.cltyclerk.lacity.org ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA MAYOR May 25, 2010 To All Interested Parties: The City Council adopted the action(s), as attached, under Council file No. 10-0820 , at its meeting held May 21 I 2010 . An Equal Employment Opportunity -Affirmative Action Employer RESOL Harvey Milk Day 1 tlJ J---1 May 22, 2010 WHEREAS, San Francisco city politician Harvey Milk helped open the door for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Trans gender (LGBT) individuals in the United States when he became the I" openly gay man to be elected to public office. WHEREAS, During his tragically short political career, Milk was an unwavering and fearless champion of LGBT issues, but never lost sight of the big picture, battling for a wide range of social changes in such areas as education, public transportation, child care, and low-income housing. WHEREAS, Milk entered the political arena for the first time in 1973 after being angered by the Watergate scandal, Milk decided to run for a spot on the Board of Supervisors, San Francisco's city council. Using the gay community as his voting base, Milk sought to develop an alliance with other minorities in the city. WHEREAS, Of the thirty-two candidates in the race, Milk came in tenth. Though he lost the election, he gained enough support to put him on the city's political map.
    [Show full text]
  • Insanity Defense
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice Insanity Defense A study guide written by: Norval Morris, University of Chicago Law School 100742 U.S. Departmer t of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or orgamzatlon onglnallng II POints of view or opInions stated In this document are Ihose of the authors and do not necessanly represent the official pOSlhon or poliCies 01 the National Insillute ot Justice PermisSion to reproduce IhlS c~led matenal has been granted by P1.1bl:lC:~9rnain/NIJ ____ ... _jJS~R~pi3.rtrneILtqfJ1Jsti!;~_ to the Nalional Cnmlnal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) Further reproducllon oUlslde 01 Ihe NCJRS system reqUires permiS­ sion of the c~hl owner Moderator: james Q. Wilson, Professor of Government, Harvard University Guests: D. Lowell jensen, Deputy AUorne)' General, U.S. Department of justice Norval Morris, Un.:versity of Chicago Law School Jonas Rappeport, Chief Medical Oflicer, Circuit Court, Baltimore Ci~y Your discGssion will be assisted by your knowing some of .. the reasons that have been otTered for having an insanity defense, some of the insanity defense tests that have been developed by the courts, and what happens to persons found not guilty by reason of insanity. Why a Defense of Insanity'? How Frequently Was the Defense of In 197'2 the Federal system rejected the Dllrhlllll Rille and The various insanity defen.se standards that are discu~~ed adopted the ~ubstance of a defense of insanity recomillended above are set OUI in the following chart.
    [Show full text]
  • Sentencing Alternative to an Insanity Defense
    Seattle Journal for Social Justice Volume 19 Issue 2 Article 12 4-14-2021 Sentencing Alternative to an Insanity Defense Michael Mullan Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj Recommended Citation Mullan, Michael (2021) "Sentencing Alternative to an Insanity Defense," Seattle Journal for Social Justice: Vol. 19 : Iss. 2 , Article 12. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol19/iss2/12 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Publications and Programs at Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Seattle Journal for Social Justice by an authorized editor of Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. 441 Sentencing Alternative to an Insanity Defense Michael Mullan* I. INTRODUCTION In the 2020 case Kahler v. Kansas, the U.S. Supreme Court held that under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is constitutional to abolish the affirmative insanity defense.1 The Court accepted the view that Kansas’s provision for mental illness evidence to be introduced at the sentencing stage of a criminal trial, as well as to be adduced to deny mens rea at trial, was a constitutionally acceptable alternative to an affirmative insanity defense. This article focuses on the sentencing alternative. The alternative to the insanity defense of making mental illness solely relevant at the sentencing stage of a criminal trial is insufficient given the profound legal, historical, and moral underpinnings of the defense itself.2 First, the facts of the case and the issues that Kahler had with the Kansas provisions will be examined.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Criminal Law and the Volitional Insanity Defense Jodie English
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 40 | Issue 1 Article 1 1-1988 The Light between Twilight and Dusk: Federal Criminal Law and the Volitional Insanity Defense Jodie English Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jodie English, The Light between Twilight and Dusk: Federal Criminal Law and the Volitional Insanity Defense, 40 Hastings L.J. 1 (1988). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol40/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Articles The Light Between Twilight and Dusk: Federal Criminal Law and the Volitional Insanity Defense by JODIE ENGLISH* With the enactment of the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 ("Act"),1 years of congressional efforts at redefining the federal insanity defense2 finally reached fruition. For the first time in history, Congress successfully passed comprehensive legislation pertaining to the defense of criminal responsibility, an area which was previously part of the small 3 but exclusive domain of the federal judiciary. * Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Emory University LL.M Program in Litigation; Assistant Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law. B.A. 1975, Princeton University; J.D. 1979, Northeastern University School of Law. While the ideas expressed in this Article are solely the author's, the author wishes to thank Professors Richard Bonnie, Roy Sobelson, and David Wexler for their insightful com- ments on earlier drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Insanity Defense: Conceptual Confusion and the Erosion of Fairness, 67 Marq
    Marquette Law Review Volume 67 Article 2 Issue 1 Fall 1983 The nsI anity Defense: Conceptual Confusion and the Erosion of Fairness Wallace A. MacBain Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Wallace A. MacBain, The Insanity Defense: Conceptual Confusion and the Erosion of Fairness, 67 Marq. L. Rev. 1 (1983). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol67/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW Volume 67 Fall 1983 No. 1 THE INSANITY DEFENSE: CONCEPTUAL CONFUSION AND THE EROSION OF FAIRNESS WALLACE A. MACBAIN* I. INTRODUCTION The insanity defense is in serious trouble.1 This article will examine one of the main causes of its peril: a habitual failure to come to terms with the meaning and implications of "mens rea" and its relation to "guilt" and "responsibil- ity." While reviewers have given ample consideration to the insanity defense, there has not been sufficient concern for the link between doctrinal confusion and the threats to which the defense is now exposed. This article does not seek to comprehensively analyze the insanity defense. Expressly excluded from discussion are (1) the proper standard for exculpation on the ground of mental * B.S., Temple University, 1958; J.D., Rutgers University School of Law, 1959; Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • The Myth of Factual Innocence
    Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 82 Issue 2 Symposium: The 50th Anniversary of 12 Article 10 Angry Men April 2007 The Myth of Factual Innocence Morris B. Hoffman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Morris B. Hoffman, The Myth of Factual Innocence, 82 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 663 (2007). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol82/iss2/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. THE MYTH OF FACTUAL INNOCENCE MORRIS B. HOFFMAN* INTRODUCTION Almost all criminal defendants plead guilty, and almost all of them do so because they are guilty. The ones who take their cases to trial are also overwhelmingly guilty, at least in the sense that there is no issue about whether they committed the charged acts. The relatively few felony cases that actually go to trial in America are typically about moral guilt, not fac- tual guilt. That is, they are about the level of the defendant's culpability and therefore the level of the crime of which he will be convicted. I Yet the picture of the American criminal justice system painted in 12 Angry Men is of a truth-finding system so feeble that it must depend, in the end, on the instincts of a single courageous dissenting juror-in this case Juror #8, played by Henry Fonda.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Criminal Code: General Defenses
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 2015 The American Criminal Code: General Defenses Paul H. Robinson University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Matthew Kussmaul University of Pennsylvania Law Scbool--JD candidate Camber Stoddard White & Case LLP Ilya Rudyak University of Pennsylvania Law School Fox Fellow Andreas Kuersten National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legislation Commons, and the Public Law and Legal Theory Commons Repository Citation Robinson, Paul H.; Kussmaul, Matthew; Stoddard, Camber; Rudyak, Ilya; and Kuersten, Andreas, "The American Criminal Code: General Defenses" (2015). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 1425. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1425 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Journal of Legal Analysis Advance Access published March 15, 2015 THE AMERICAN CRIMINAL CODE: GENERAL DEFENSES Paul H. Robinson*, Matthew G. Kussmaul**, Camber M. Stoddardy, Ilya Rudyakz, and Andreas Kuersten§ ABSTRACT Downloaded from There are fifty-twobodies of criminal law in the USA. Each stakes out often diverse positions ona range ofissues.This articledefines the “American rule” for each ofthe issues relatingto general defenses, a first contribution toward creating an “American Criminal Code”. The article is the result of a several-year research project examining every issue relat- ing to justification, excuse, and nonexculpatory defenses.
    [Show full text]