This created the M’Naghten rule, which held that a man is not responsible for his criminal acts, when, because of a “disease of the mind,” he does not know the “nature and quality” of his acts or does not know they are “wrong.” The courts used the M’Naghten rule for some time as the determination factor in cases where the insanity defense was their plea. Because of its broad definition and criteria, the M’Naghten rule adopted many forms over the years. Cases like Durham v. United States help the rule form the “product of mental illness” approach. The test named Durham product test created an assessment for insanity based on a substantial lack of mental capacity
However, there are many pros and cons to each side of the argument. Physician-assisted suicide is unethical based on the Hippocratic Oath, but is ethical based on the patient’s views – which sometimes outweigh the morals of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide first became an issue when our society decided that it was neither moral nor ethical for a physician to help end a terminally ill patient’s life. According to Katie Pickert, Dr. Jack Kevorkian brought lots of attention to the topic during the “epic assisted suicide battle of the 1990s” (1). People who argue with Kevorkian for physician-assisted suicide feel that by helping a patient end his or her life peacefully is helpful to family and friends.
The Actus Reus needed is ABH, defined in case law as anything that interferes with the health or comfort of the victim. The trouble with the Actus Reus for S.47 is where the definition has come from. Case law is where judicial decisions are made within a particular case and are then applicable to other future cases. Because it is made by judges people may see it as challenging Parliament supremacy and democracy as judges are unelected. The obvious way to get around this is for Parliament to define concepts such as ABH in the Act itself.
There are many issues when it comes to the classification and diagnosis of schizophrenia, one of them being the reliability of the major classification systems, the DSM and ICD. Early versions of the DSM were deemed unreliable, even now when the newer versions are now said to have increased reliability there is little evidence to prove that the DSM is used with high reliability by mental health clinicians. This unreliable source of diagnosis may cause some patients to be misdiagnosed and due to this misdiagnosis many terrible situations may occur, they will be mistreated and therefore will be given drugs and exercises which are completely irrelevant to what they need to do, this could cause great harm to both their physical and mental well being, the misdiagnosis can also affect how they are in real life for example they will be labelled schizophrenic and therefore will struggle with everything in life, such as getting a job or even being themselves for they believe what they have been told to be true. There is also an issue with the treatment of schizophrenia due to the significant difficulty in predicting the outcome or the response, because every case of schizophrenia is different in their own way then there is no telling what the same treatment will do to one patient in comparison with another this uncertainty clearly points out a huge point at which the diagnosis of schizophrenia is just too vague, there are many sub types and for this how can all of them be put under the same title for the same treatment... Schizophrenia is a term which is somewhat thrown around, especially by the media, misleading the general population into thinking it is a mental disorder which you should be scared of due to the delusions and hallucinations which we have been told occur all the time, this in fact is not completely true as there are many subtypes of schizophrenia, some
CJ 400 Anatomy of a Murder REVIEW AND SUMMARY OF INSANITY DEFENSE The term ‘insanity’ has two distinct definitions in the fields of law and medicine. The legal term is defined as, “…a mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior.” (The People's Law Dictionary) In medicine, the term insanity is no longer used. Insanity as a medical term was replaced with mental illness which can be defined as, “Any of various disorders characterized chiefly by abnormal behavior or an inability to function socially, including diseases of the mind and personality and certain diseases of the brain.” (Roget's II 1995) Taking into consideration the very vague difference between the two definitions, it is important to note that the legal definition adds that the term insanity used in the court room is in no way a medical diagnosis for mental illness. One definition of insanity follows the other. After medical professionals deem a person mentally ill, the court room can then proceed to conclude an insanity defense.
The Supreme Court, in 1986, ruled that according to the Eight Amendment a legally insane, which is not the same as being mentally ill, prisoner could not be executed because it is “cruel and unusual punishment”(Davison and Neale, p539). This has now created another issue because legally mental patients have the right to treatment, the right to the least restrictive treatment, and the right to refuse treatment. It is this last right that is the focus with mentally ill patients on death row: Can the state force this same kind of prisoner to take medication to become sane enough for execution? The U.S Supreme Court has held that prisoners may be forced to take anti-psychotic medications to ensure that they are competent to stand trial. Nonetheless,
Threatening to harm him or someone else is completely different from trying to prevent a bigger crime from happening by committing an act. After a 10 year period of uncertainty of trying to decide whether duress was an acceptable defence in court the house of lords finally decided that it is not the most comprehensive test of this is illustrated in the case R V Graham 1982 this suggests the test can be applied in any situation despite this being a murder case. When defendant has arisen duress. The law on this can be different as these 2 issues coming up in court can make it illegal but cannot constitute a crime due extraordinary circumstances. Some courts look at the 2 of these and merge them into one defence.
This is shown in an article written by Justice Kevin Duggan in the Sydney Morning Herald (July 25, 2011) where he states that “criminal cases are becoming too complicated for juries”. Further to this, not only do juries struggle due to technology, but may also not understand key and extremely basic legal terms such as “beyond reasonable doubt” according to a report by BOCSAR in 2011. However, as the Jury Amendment (Verdicts) Act 2006 brought in laws accepting majority verdicts (11-1), it does question the notion of “beyond reasonable doubt”. In addition, the use of expert witnesses can also create difficulties for jurors when assessing evidence as it may be overpowering which may cause some jurors to not consider future evidence, as seen in the Gordon Wood case regarding Professor Cross, who was an expert witness on physics for the
The War on Crime was basically a plan so show Americans that the criminal justice system could be restored. Many people thought law and order could not regain control. A study of the criminal justice system, with an eye on reform, was a great challenge, and many people thought the task impossible. The American Bar Association declared that the criminal justice system in America was, in reality, a “nonsystem.” The July 25, 1965, War on Crime’s objectice was to be the counter attack
When a criminal offence has a minimum sentence, the sentencing judge has no discretion but to give the person convicted at least the minimum sentence (MacIntosh, 1952, pg 47-56). Judges of all ideologies have felt that mandatory sentences unduly restrict judges' discretion and lead to unjust sentences (MacIntosh, 1952, pg 47-56). Judges facing harsh mandatory sentencing regimes have admitted to using "'a variety of methods to expand their discretion, including refusing plea bargains, assignment of offenders to probation and community service, creative interpretation of statutes, and recommendations to the probation department to allow alternative placements for mandatory sentences (Greenblatt, 1997). As stated by Robert Batey (2002) in “Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: A Failed Policy,” mandatory minimums take sentencing power away from the judge and give it to the prosecutor, who decides whether to charge the defendant with a crime carrying a long minimum sentence or some lesser offense. In exchange for exercising this discretion in favour of the defendant, the prosecutor expects something from the defendant, if not substantial assistance (by giving testimony, informing on others outside of the courtroom, or participating in dangerous undercover activities), then at least by pleading guilty to the lesser charge (Batey,