i remember the day buckwheat was shot...
but back to the real deal.
insanity.
hinkley.
dahmer.
what do we do with people like this?
hypo #1. arthur is a paranoid schizophrenic, with a particular obsession with fruit. he comes to believe that his mother's head is actually a melon. and he believes that as the result of genetic engineering gone bad, the melon is growing and will not stop. eventually, it will take over the house. so he carves up the melon.
actus reus: arthur caused the death of another person.
voluntary? YES -- he intended to carve up (a fruit that he even knew was) his mother's head.
mens rea: ...
as to common law:
defects of cognition (m'naughten)
1) does not know nature and quality of act
2) does not know the act is wrong
is there another way of defending?
mens rea: arthur did not know the nature or quality of the act he was doing, and couldn't have intended to kill another human being
hypo #2. bod is a ps who believes that his neighbor victor is controlling his mind with radio waves. in particular, he believes that victor is responsible for his mother's death, for his inability to have sex, and for his girlfriend leaving him, and that these indignitites are just a prelude to victor's ultimate plan, which is to kill bob and take over the world. so bob kills victor.
bob has a defect of cognition.
does he know what he's doing? yes
does he know he killed victor? yes
does he know he's cause the death of another person? yes
if he wants to assert insanity defense can he say i didn't know the quality/nature? no
what can he assert if he wants to claim insanity defense? can you think of a different assertion? yes -- bob thinks he is doing something good....
hypo #3. charlie is a ps who hears voices in his head. the voices keep telling charlie "kill the president." he says no, that's wrong. but the voices won't stop. he goes and shoots the president. the voices stop.
does charlie have the correct mental state? yes does hie kno what he did was wrong? yes if he has only m'naughten test, he won't win? what insanity defense is available to him? irresistible impulse it's not that charlie doesn't perceive the world correctly, it's that he cannot control himself
defects of volition
3) act was an "irresistible impulse" ... what does this even mean?
hypo #4. dennis is a ps who suffers from a delusion about the particular actress. he thinks that he's become too plain and she doesn't love him anymore. he wants to be cool enough to get her attention again, so he kills the president.
did dennis intend to kill another person? yes
does dennis know what he's doing? yes
is it an irresistible impulse? no, he just refuses to be deterred
what defect is available to him?
defects (durham test)
4) act was the product of a mental disease or defect (just, he's crazy!)
under durham, all you need is a link between the mental illness and the crime...
hypo #5. edgar is a construction worker who as a result of a head injury has become a sociopath with an increased mental defect. one day when edgar is walking down a subway platform as a train enters the station, he rougly pushes a child out of his way. the child falls on the track and is killed by the passing train.
what did he do? push a kid
mental state? reckless/maybe knowingly but not really intent
is he guilty of a manslaughter?
can he assert insanity defense? he has a mental disease caused by traumatic brain injury. which form of the test would work for him?
did he understand the nature/quality? no
did he know he was pushing a little girl? yes
did he know what he was doing was wrong? yes
was it an irresistible impulse? probably not (not thinking "i gotta go push a girl!")
was it a result of his mental disease? yes
to the extent you feel sorry for someone, it effects your retributive decisions. however, the impulse to punish is still largely utilitarian: to quote rich campisi, "we don't care -- we need to protect society, it's difficult to draw lines, and if we're overly broad we will have slippery slope arguments abound."
however, we still do give a defense for insanity...
the bottom line is that we can argue it if there's a mental disease/defect...
what's the retributive effect there?
the definitions come from doctors, who could care less about whether or not people are blameworthy. instead, they are looking for how to treat and heal.
but we are using the definitions to impact punishment and blame...
(con) utilitarian -- prison is more cost effective
(pro) retributive -- they have low culpability
(pro) utilitarian -- protect defendant from prison inmates
(pro) utilitarian -- some people are not deterrable
(con) utilitarian -- you can deter caregivers from enabling...
but understand the weakness: the fear your child could kill
someone is powerful enough deterrence and probably won't
additionally impact
(con) retributive -- harm!!!
the two major pro arguments: insane people have low culpability and are not deterrable
the major con argument: HARM
hinkley. attempted murder. what's the typical sentence? 10 - 20... he's been in civil commitment for 30, and he's not getting out
but what's the biggest problem with the insanity defense?
the insanity defense is an alternative route for defendants, even those who are not insane but may fraudulently claim it. like lorena bobbitt.
(con) retributive -- no false claims, so people are held to their harm and culpability
(con) utilitarian -- do acts without relying on the insanity defense
but the real deal... insanity is claimed infrequently and granted even less frequently.
MPC s. 4.01 defects of cognition
(1) lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality (or, wrongfulness) of the act
n.b. -- this definition is more flexible than the m'naughten test because
policy:
history: psychology and neurology field developments
defects of volition
(2) lacks substantial capacity to conform conduct to requirements of law, instead of "irresistible impulse"... which basically means nothing
NYPL 40.15
what's the difference to the MPC?
it's like the m'naughten prongs but the "irresistible impulse" defense is unavailable.
what's the historical difference? changed the burden of proof to the defense.
No comments:
Post a Comment