Culpability for inducing mental states: the insanity defense of Dr. Jekyll.

نویسنده

  • Edward W Mitchell
چکیده

Insanity acquittees are often (erroneously) believed to get away with murder. This article examines one possible cause of this view--that insanity acquittees may have, to various degrees, caused or exacerbated their own mental disorder in the first instance. Such a component of prior fault is illustrated with recourse to the putative insanity defense of Dr. Jekyll, who, while almost certainly not criminally responsible at the time he committed murder (in the guise of Mr. Hyde), was culpable for bringing about that nullification of responsibility (thereby causing the conditions of his own defense). Such culpability (also found in intoxication cases) is examined in relation to medication noncompliance in mentally disordered offenders, and possible solutions for dealing with "culpable madness" are presented.

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Capacity and Mitigation

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Roper v. Simmons [1] and the amicus briefs submitted in support of abolishing the death penalty for juveniles suggests that neuroscientific evidence will play an increasingly important role in shaping legal concepts of culpability [2]. As we saw in Chapter 9, neuroscience is already beginning to play an important role in insanity defense proceedings. ...

متن کامل

Depressed but not legally mentally impaired.

This article examines the mental impairment (insanity) defense in the Australian state of Victoria and argues that the defense is successful only when offenders suffer from psychotic mental illnesses. This raises the question about how non-psychotic offenders are dealt with by the courts when they claim 'mental impairment' for serious acts of violence such as homicide, particularly when a relat...

متن کامل

Punishing 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 کامل

In 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 کامل

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 کامل

ذخیره 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 نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

عنوان ژورنال:
  • The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

دوره 32 1  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2004