NCJ Number
29875
Journal
Medicine, Science and the Law Volume: 15 Issue: 3 Dated: (JULY 1975) Pages: 198-204
Date Published
1975
Length
7 pages
Annotation
ENGLISH CASE LAW IS CITED IN THIS DISCUSSION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND THE DEFENSES OF DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY, PROVACATION, DRUNKENNESS, THE EFFECT OF DRUGS, INSANITY, AND AUTOMATISM.
Abstract
THE AUTHOR MAINTAINS THAT THE DEFENSE OF DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD BE ABOLISHED SINCE IT REPRESENTS AN 'ILLOGICAL AND COMPROMISING APPROACH, DIVORCED FROM REALITY', AND THAT THE PLEA OF AUTOMATISM SHOULD BE RETAINED, ALTHOUGH WITH AN AMENDED DESCRIPTION OR DEFINITION. HE CONCLUDES THAT THE CONCEPT OF RESPONSIBILITY REQUIRES THAT IF THE PROSECUTOR PROVES THE ACT, BUT FAILS TO PROVE CRIMINAL INTENTION BECAUSE OF MENTAL ILLNESS, NO MORAL STIGMA BE ATTACHED TO THE DEFENDANT AND HE BE ACQUITTED. HOWEVER, IF THE COURT IS SATISFIED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT REPRESENTS A RISK OR DANGER TO THE PUBLIC, AND IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO MEDICAL TREATMENT, THE AUTHOR CONTENDS THAT THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE COMMITTED TO A HOSPITAL OR OTHER APPROPRIATE INSTITUTION, OR INTO THE NON-CUSTODIAL CARE OF AN INSTITUTION OR PERSON. (A BIBLIOGRAPHY IS INCLUDED).