SPECIAL DOCTRINAL TREATMENT IN CRIMINAL LAW (FROM MENTALLY RETARDED CITIZEN AND THE LAW, 1976 BY MICHAEL KINDRED, JULIUS COHEN, DAVID PENROD AND THOMAS SHAFFER SEE NCJ-35524)

• NCJ Number: 35527
• Author(s): N MORRIS; V J ZICCARDI
• Date Published: 1976
• Length: 12 pages
• Corporate Author: Free Press
• Publication Format: Document
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

IN THESE TWO ARTICLES, THE ISSUES SURROUNDING THE PLEA OF INCOMPETENCY AND THE INSANITY DEFENSE ARE EXAMINED; THE FIRST CALLS FOR ABOLITION OF THESE PLEAS FOR THE GOOD OF THE DEFENDANT, WHILE THE SECOND SUPPORTS THEIR USE.

Abstract

DRAWING ON HIS EXPERIENCES WITH THE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY SPECIAL RULES OF COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL AND OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY, THE FIRST AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT THE DEFENSE OF INSANITY OR MENTAL RETARDATION AND THE PLEA OF INCOMPETENCY SHOULD BE ABOLISHED. HE NOTES THAT SUPPOSEDLY BENEVOLENT SPECIAL RULES OFTEN WORK GREAT HARDSHIP ON THE MENTALLY IMPAIRED INDIVIDUALS THEY ARE DESIGNED TO HELP. HE DESCRIBES THE EFFECTS OF DOUBLE STIGMATIZATION IN TERMS OF AVERAGE LONGER PERIODS OF INCARCERATION. FINALLY, HE ARGUES FOR THE EQUAL APPLICATION TO MENTALLY RETARDED CITIZENS OF THE GENERAL RIGHT TO PROOF OF SPECIFIC CRIMINAL INTENT AND A SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONAL PROCESS THAT WOULD PROVIDE PROPER SERVICES TO THE MENTALLY RETARDED CITIZEN BECAUSE HE IS A CITIZEN, RATHER THAN BECAUSE HE IS MENTALLY RETARDED. THE NEXT PAPER STRONGLY CRITICIZES THIS FIRST ARTICLE'S POSITION, AGAIN FROM AN EXPERIENTIAL POINT OF VIEW. THE AUTHOR'S APPROACH IS THAT OF A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND HE IS WARY OF GIVING UP TOOLS THAT MAY SOMETIMES BE USED BY AN ATTORNEY IN REPRESENTING A PERSON CHARGED WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)