Unformatted text preview:

CCJS230 Chapter 6Defenses to Criminal LiabilityFailure of proof scheme: defendants raise a reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proven the mental element of the crime, so they don’t have to justify or excuse their conduct because it’s not criminal conductThe Insanity Defense- Affirmative defense of insanity (“Insanity defense”): the legal excuse that defendants aren’t responsible for their criminal conduct because it was caused by a mental disease or defect- Insanity: the legal term that refers to a mental disease or defect that impairs the reason and/or will- Civil commitment: a noncriminal (civil) proceeding, in which courts have the power to decide if defendants who were insane when they committed their crimes are still insaneU.S. v. Hinckley (2009)- Hinckley already has visits to his mother’s home outside D.C. for six nights,- Hospital believes he is ready for the next phase- Mr. Hinckley is permitted to utilize more absences from the Hospital, increased freedom, and additional privileges to begin integrating himself into his mother’s community- Hospital evaluates this process to determine whether he is ready to bereleased from the hospital to live independently in his mother’s community.The Tests of Insanity- All four tests look at defendants’ mental capacity, but they differ in what they are looking for- Reason: psychologists call it “cognition” the capacity to tell right from wrong- Will: psychologists call it “volition”, most of us call it willpower, in the insanity tests, it refers to defendants’ power to control their actions1. Right-Wrong Test (The McNaughtan Rule): the oldest rule, it’s used in twentyeight states and the federal courts- the defendant suffered a defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind- at the time of the act she did not knowo the nature and quality of the act (she didn’t know what she wasdoing) oro that the act was wrong- Mental Disease: most courts define it as psychosis, mostly paranoia and schizophrenia- Mental defect: refers to mental retardation or brain damage severe enough to make it impossible to know what you’re doing, or if you know, you don’t know that it’s wrong- State v. Odell (2004)o Odell murdered his father at the dinner table while there were guests over by shooting him in the chesto Got the gun out of his trucko Fled the crime scene right after it happenedo Claimed insanity and that he did not know what was happening during this timeo Did he know the nature and wrongfulness of his acts?o Court said yes, so appealedo Higher court found his psychiatric reviews to still not provide enough evidence for insanity, affirmed trial courts ruling2. The Irresistible Impulse Test- Bifurcated (two stage) trial: a two phase trial, in which the first phase determines whether the state has met its burden of proof and if so, thesecond phase determines whether the defendant has sustained the burden of establishing a mental illness defense- Irresistible impulse test: we can’t blame or deter people who because of a mental disease or defect know what they’re doing is “wrong” but can’t bring their actions into line with their knowledge of right and wrong- Testo At the time of the crime, was the defendant afflicted with “a disease of the mind?”o If so, did the defendant know right from wrong with respect to the act charged? If not, the law excuses the defendant.o If the defendant did have such knowledge, the law will still excuse him if two conditions occur: If the mental disease caused the defendant to so far lose the power to choose between right and wrong and to avoid doing the alleged act that the disease destroyed his free will and If the mental disease was the sole cause of the act3. The Product of Mental Illness Test (Durham Rule)- Product-of-mental-illness test: also known as the Durham rule, acts that are the “products” of mental disease or defect excuse criminal liability- Durham rule: acts that are the “products” of mental disease or defect excuse criminal liability4. The Substantial Capacity Test (Model Penal Code Test)- Substantial capacity test: MPC test designed to remove the objections to the right-wrong test, its irresistible impulse supplement, and the Durham ruleThe Defense of Diminished Capacity- Diminished capacity: an attempt to prove that the defendant, incapable of therequisite intent of the crime charged, is innocent of that crime but may well be guilty of a lesser one- Diminished responsibility: the defendant argues, “what I did was wrong, but under the circumstances I’m less responsible”The Excuse of Age- Under 7: Children had no criminal capacity- Ages 7-14: Children were presumed to have no criminal capacity, but the presumption could be overcome- Over 14. Children had the same capacity as adults- Waiver to adult criminal court: meaning the juvenile court gives up its jurisdiction over the case and turns it over to the adult criminal court- Judicial waiver: when juvenile court judges use their discretion to transfer a juvenile to adult criminal court- The seriousness of the defense- Whether the offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated, willful manner- Whether the offense was against a person- The amount of evidence against the juvenile- The sophistication and maturity of the juvenile- The prior record of the juvenile- The threat the juvenile poses to public safetyState v. K.R.L (1992)- KRL (8), was convicted of residential burglary…appealed- Went into his neighbors home, took her goldfish, and cut it up- Then put her curling iron (on) wrapped in a towel- Was he too young to have criminal intent?- Did the trial court err in concluding that K.R.L. had the capacity to commit thecrime of residential burglary?- ReversedThe Defense of Duress- Defense of duress: when defendants use the excuse that they were forced to do what they did- Elements- Nature of the threat: death threat?- Immediacy of the threats- Crimes the defense applies to- Level of belief regarding the threatThe Defense of Intoxication- Accountability: Those who get drunk should take the consequences of their actions. Someone who gets drunk is liable for the violent consequences- Culpability: Criminal Liability and punishment depend on blameworthiness- Involuntary intoxication: an excuse to criminal liability in all states; it includes cases in which defendants don’t know they’re taking intoxicants or know but are forced to take themThe Defense of Entrapment-


View Full Document
Download Defenses to Criminal Liability
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Defenses to Criminal Liability and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Defenses to Criminal Liability 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?