Hendricks v. People: forcing the insanity defense on an unwilling defendant.
نویسنده
چکیده
At least 17 jurisdictions permit insanity defenses to be entered over the objections of defendants. Those jurisdictions believe that society's interest in a just determination of the charges outweighs a competent defendant's choice. If competency includes the ability to rationally choose a plea, competent defendants should not be forced to enter insanity defenses against their wills.
منابع مشابه
Insanity Defense in S. 1: Squeezing
As debate over the function and administration of the insanity defense has heightened in recent years, abolition of the defense has become an increasingly serious alternative.' The Senate Committee on the Judiciary is now considering one such proposal. Section 522 of the proposed Criminal Justice Reform Act of 1975,2 popularly known as S. 1, states a viable defense if "the defendant, as a resul...
متن کاملIn Defense of Cultural “Insanity”: Using Insanity as a Proxy for Culture in Criminal Cases
Courts in the United States do not recognize a formal “cultural defense” for criminal acts committed by defendants belonging to other cultures. This means that courts ostensibly do not take foreign cultural practices, customs, or beliefs into account in evaluating the guilt of individuals who break U.S. laws. Nonetheless, courts have repeatedly permitted cultural evidence to be introduced as an...
متن کاملIn the aftermath of State v. Becker: a review of state and federal jury instructions on insanity acquittal disposition.
An important topic related to the insanity defense is what jurors should be told about the disposition of a defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). In the federal court system, jurors are not instructed about the consequences of an NGRI verdict. State courts, however, are divided on the question. The federal precedent, Shannon v. United States, and the most recent state case to...
متن کاملA New Approach to Insanity Acquittee Recidivism: Redefining the Class of Truly Responsible Recidivists
After receiving verdicts of not guilty by reason of insanity, John McGee and Ronald Manlen were committed to Michigan mental hospitals. The center for forensic psychiatry later determined that McGee and Manlen were “no longer mentally ill and dangerous” and released them. Shortly after being released, McGee kicked his wife to death and Manlen raped two women. The public outcry that followed the...
متن کاملPunishing the insane: the verdict of guilty but mentally ill.
The defense of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) has been a part of English jurisprudence at least since the reign of King Aethelred in the 10th century and today is an important aspect of American law. Some form of insanity defense appears to be an element of due process. Those states that have successfully abolished the insanity defense provide for introduction of psychiatric testimony ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
دوره 30 2 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2002