Automatism occurs when the defendant's conscious mind is not connected with the part of mind that controls actions. Insanity can be used where a disease of mind prevented the defendant from reasoning. Automatism and insanity excuse the defendant because his state of mind was such that he cannot be regarded as responsible for his actions. Both of these defences apply to all offences. Unlike automatism and insanity, diminished responsibility may be caused by external or internal factors ... ... middle of paper ... ...ing able to control his actions.
In legal definition, the McNaughten rule dictates that a person may be considered not responsible for a crime if his or her state of mind is in a diminished capacity, or he did not know it was wrong (fulero & wrightsman, 2009). I think this defense is too broad and far too subjective as it ultimately brings forth the question of how does society and the laws distinguish between that of deviant behavior and that of the mentally ill? That questions its self opens the door to several other such as if a mentally ill person acts in a deviant manner is it excusable and is deviant behavior necessary a mental disorder. Overall I think the McNaughten rule definition is very vague as it looks at behavior through a very narrow scope. It provides opportunities for malingering and justification to deviant behavior by labeling it mental insanity.
What makes a crime a crime would some ones responsibility level be different if there mental state isn’t stable? In most cases the person committing a crime intended to do something that the state legislature or Congress has stated that it is wrong. "mens rea" is a concept is based on a belief that people should be punished only when they have acted in a way that makes them morally blameworthy. In the legal system people who purposely take part in the behavior that is prohibited by a law are responsible. "Ordinary" negligence is not a crime.
If there can be violence without the presence of hate speech, then there can be hate speech without violence. Most importantly, one’s right to their constitutional freedoms is nonnegotiable. The approach that should be taken is effectively making a distinction between hate speech and acts of hate. Citizens have the right to speak their mind, even if it is disrespectful to many, but that does not allow them or others to physically act upon it and cause harm to other civilians, for which they can and definitely ought to be punished. However, this becomes increasingly difficult as the Court has ruled many times that some non-verbal acts are considered speech, as seen in Johnson v. Texas, and vice versa in that all speech is essentially some act.
Snyman is of the view that a person who is voluntarily intoxicated and commits an offence in this state, ought not to have a ground for complaining. He further states that punishment theories such as retributive and deterrent, demand that the intoxicated culprit should not be allowed to hide behind his drunkenness to escape liability. Section 1 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (thereafter, the “Act”) reads as follows, “Any person who consumes or uses any substance which impairs his or her faculties to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her acts or to act in accordance with that appreciation, while knowing that such substance has that effect, and who while such faculties are thus impaired commits any act prohibited by law under any penalty, but is not criminally liable because his or her faculties were impaired as aforesaid, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to the penalty which may be imposed in respect of the commission of that
But at some point doesn’t a line have to be drawn? Yes, in some manner in some situations I believe that you must step off the position of power and leadership, and get your hands dirty. Klockars argues that all persons encountered by police officers in situation of enforcement, such as a traffic stop, must be considered guilty. The officer must take that stand in order to protect themselves. If nothing is found the person is merely innocent this time.
What is the insanity defense exactly? The insanity defense can be defined as “A defense asserted by an accused in a criminal prosecution to avoid liability for the commission of a crime, whereas at the time of the crime, the person did not appreciate the nature, quality, or wrongdoing of the acts.” In order to understand the insanity defense in its entirety, we must define other forms of it. The uttermost common variation is cognitive insanity which is where the defendant is profoundly impaired by a mental disease/defect at the time of the crime that he or she did not understand or appreciate the nature of the act committed or just didn’t know what they had done was wrong. Another form of insanity is called volitional insanity, or irresistible impulse. In addition, volitional insanity is essentially the same as the insanity plea, but with one critical difference, and that is, unlike the insanity plea whereas the defendant does not understand right from wrong, the irresistible impulse is when the defendant can discern between what is right and what is wrong.
. . I am sure I am going to get in trouble for saying it, for $65 you can bring that lawsuit" (Carter, 2013, pp.4). The stop and frisk law is one reason I do not believe in law enforcement profiling. Even though some law enforcement officers allow personal feelings and power to allow them to not follow policy, some policies are not followed morally because I do not feel that officers should be allowed to frisk someone who is innocent and has not committed a crime because it takes the focus off real criminals and onto innocent people; it causes emotional stress.
Persons who are incompetent to stand trial are held in a mental institution until they are considered capable of participating in the proceedings.The insanity defense also should be kept separate from issues concerning mental retardation. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2002 in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S. Ct. 2242, 153 L. Ed. 2d 335 (2002) that the execution of mentally retarded criminals constituted "cruel and unusual punishment" and that it was prohibited by Eighth Amendment. But if a person is acquitted by reason of insanity, execution is not an option. The insanity defense reflects the generally accepted notion that persons who cannot appreciate the consequences of their actions should not be punished for criminal acts.