If he is responsible he should be ‘blamed’ through a conviction and then ‘punished’ with his sentence. The sentence is deserved because of the initial fault in his conduct. The a/r of a crime is usually in the form of a voluntary act, where the deft is in control of his actions. In the case of Hill v Baxter, a driver who was attacked by a swarm of bees was said to be no longer acting voluntarily, and thus was not at fault. However, fault can arise from a persons omission (a failure to act) also, but in such cases the deft will be held less responsible as he had less control over his actions.
Week 6 Check Point: Mind Over Matter By Mary Setzer The difference between mental illness and insanity is that insanity is a more severe form of mental illness where a person fails to realize what is real and what is fantasy. The M'Naghten rule can't be used to defend the actions of someone who drinks alcohol because drinking is a voluntary act. Had the person not had alcohol, they would not have committed a crime. If someone receives a rational and guilty verdict after committing a crime, it means that the person convicted knew what they were doing and aware of the consequences. A guilty but insane verdict means that the person convicted was insane to have killed someone (for example) but realizes what they have done is wrong.
Content Book 1 – Extra Social Factors Suicide and Psychopathic states: Durkheim, as mentioned in the introduction, conducted the study of suicide to prove that it was social, rather than extra social factors that influenced suicide. The first extra social factor, to which suicide was mostly attributed to is insanity. Durkheim investigated this theory and pointed out that if suicide was caused by a certain insanity then this would be termed as ‘monomania’ – in Durkheim’s words, “a delirium of localized nature” that is, a person is otherwise normal but has sudden desires to drink or use abusive language. It was believed that a sudden emotional disturbance was enough to provoke monomania. However, Durkheim rejected this theory for two reasons; one, there is no concrete proof to show the existence of monomania, second, mental functions are completely dependent on one another, and insanity is present in one area, then it should also be present in another as well, that is if insanity affects one function it should affect at the other functions as well.
The officers then processed the capsules and found them to be morphine. Upon their findings the officers submitted the capsules as evidence in Rochin's case, where he was found guilty of violating Claifornia's Health and Safety Code of having an unlawful posession of morphine. Now the issue arises can law enforcement forcibly extract evidence from one's body? Rochin was found guilty, and later appealed his case stating that his rights were protected under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitutuion. He argued that forced stomach pumping was self incrimination and that the evidence should have been inadmissable in
Mind Over Matter Checkpoint McNaughten rule states that it must be clearly proven that at the time of committing the crime the accused, did not know that what they were doing was wrong because of some from defect of reason , from disease of the mind. The difference between between mental illness and insanity is the degree of mental instability the person suffers from. I mentally ill person would have severe depression, anxiety. Signs would be present and sometimes easy to spot, but these people know what is going on and know have a grip on reality. An insane person would not know the difference between reality and fantasy.
Simpson case is vital to the study of criminal justice and prosecution being that the restrictions that were obvious in the testimonies of the witnesses and evidence. As a consequence incorrect verdicts were made regarding the case for the reasons that there was evidence that could not be used like the blood samples and the detectives that gave testimonies that were ambiguous. Furthermore, before any case is taken to trial the state and the defense need to be absolutely certain that they have sufficient evidence in order to maintain their case, especially since a case can be dismissed based on the prima facie evidence provided. Studying this case has certainly changed my perspective because it was obvious that more was needed to be accomplished previous to closing remarks were
iFORENSIC PSYCHIATRY When killing isn’t murder: psychiatric and psychological defences to murder when the insanity defence is not applicable Anthony Samuels, Colman O’Driscoll and Stephen Allnutt ´ Objective: This paper describes psychiatric and psychological defences to murder where the defence of insanity is not applicable. The charges of murder and manslaughter are outlined. Self-defence, sane and insane automatism, provocation, diminished responsibility, duress, necessity and novel defences are discussed. Conclusions: The complexities of psychological and psychiatric expert evidence are highlighted as well as the fact that legal decisions are not always consistent with medical or scientific theory. It is concluded that this is a controversial and evolving area of mental health law and mental health professionals have an educative role and a responsibility to provide testimony that is supported by the best possible evidence.
The Roman law did recognize that those who committed acts without malicious intent should not be held accountable for those acts. Under the Lex Cornelia, children, because of the innocence of their intentions, and the insane, because of the nature of their misfortune, were excused from punishment (Platt and Diamond, 1966).The devastating result of the irrational behavior of the insane could be remitted by compensation to the victims paid by the guardian of the insane(Walker 1968). MEDIEVAL PERIOD The Code of Justinian, or the Corpus Iuris Civilis5 (distinguishing it from canon or church law), made provision for the insane. Likened to one ‘absent, asleep or even dead’ a person who became insane was protected from loss of property or position but was not considered capable of making a
In order to establish a false arrest claim, the person detained must prove that the arrest is unlawful and such unlawful arrest resulted in injury. An arrest is unlawful when the police officers in question did not have probable cause to make the arrest. An arresting officer who fails to take the arrested person before a court or magistrate within a reasonable time or without unnecessary delay is guilty of false imprisonment. Similarly, an officer who arrests a person without a warrant is liable for false imprisonment by detaining the prisoner an unreasonable time. Generally, false arrest is one of several means of committing false imprisonment.
1025 , directed the jury that they could infer such an intention if they were satisfied that, in throwing his son, W appreciated that there was a substantial risk of causing serious injury. W contended that, by using the phrase "a substantial risk" rather than "a virtual certainty", the judge had enlarged the mental element of murder to an unacceptable extent. The Court of Appeal dismissed that ground of appeal, holding that the phrase "a virtual certainty" should be restricted to cases where the evidence of intent was limited to actions admitted by the accused and their attendant consequences and that, where other evidence was available, the phrase did not have to be used. Held, allowing the appeal, that, in departing from the login.westlaw.co.uk/maf /wluk/app/deliv ery /document 2/15 11/10/12 Deliv ery | Westlaw UK Nedrick direction and using the phrase "a substantial risk", the judge had