criminal law
*
Chapter 9
Excuses
*
Introduction
- An act that is ordinarily subject to a criminal penalty is considered to be justified and carries no criminal liability when it preserves an important value and benefits society
- Self-defense, for instance, protects human life against wrongdoers
- Excuses, in contrast, provide a defense based on the fact that although a defendant committed a criminal act, he or she is not considered responsible
*
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e SAGE Publishing, 2019
Insanity Defense
- The insanity defense is one of the most thoroughly studied and hotly debated issues in criminal law
- Defendants who rely on the insanity defense are typically required to provide notice to the prosecution
- In most states, a separate civil commitment hearing is conducted to determine whether the defendant poses a danger and should be interned in a mental institution
*
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e SAGE Publishing, 2019
Insanity Defense
- Defendant must show insanity at trial by offering expert testimony to the fact
- In some states, when found not-guilty by reason of insanity, defendant is committed to a mental institution until it is confirmed that defendant no longer poses a danger to society
- Civil commitment hearings are often conducted to determine defendant’s danger to society
*
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e SAGE Publishing, 2019
*
Insanity Defense
- This defense is important for three reasons:
To ensure only those with free will are punished
It would be cruel to seek retribution against those unable to control their actions
Such an individual may still pose a danger to society and thus need professional treatment
- Insanity defense is distinct from a determination of competency to stand trial
*
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e SAGE Publishing, 2019
*
Insanity Defense
- The right-wrong test
M’Naghten rule
Used by most states and the federal government
Defendant, at the time of the crime, suffered from such a defect of reason that defendant “did not know what defendant was doing” or “did not know right from wrong”
- Irresistible impulse test
A “disease of the mind” caused defendant to not know right from wrong, destroyed defendant’s free will, and was the sole cause of the act
*
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e SAGE Publishing, 2019
*
Insanity Defense
- Durham product test
The act was a product of a mental disease or defect
- Substantial capacity test
Defendant lacks the capacity to appreciate the criminality of conduct or to conform to conduct required by law
*
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e SAGE Publishing, 2019
*
Insanity Defense
- Burden of proof
The defendant is presumed sane until some evidence is produced challenging this assumption
The defendant’s burden varies and ranges from a “reasonable doubt” to “some evidence,” “slight evidence,” or a “scintilla of evidence”
*
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e SAGE Publishing, 2019
*
Insanity Defense
- The future of the insanity defense
Bias
Theories of punishment
Moral blameworthiness
Experts
*
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e SAGE Publishing, 2019
*
Insanity Defense
- The future of the insanity defense
Thirteen states have adopted a verdict of guilty but mentally ill (GBMI)
Eleven of these states continue to retain the insanity defense, and in these states jurors may select from among four verdicts: guilty, not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI), and GBMI
A verdict of GBMI applies where the jury determines beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was mentally ill, but not legally insane, at the time of his or her criminal act
*
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e SAGE Publishing, 2019
Diminished Capacity
- Diminished capacity is recognized in roughly 15 states
- Permits the admission of psychiatric testimony to establish that a defendant suffers from a mental disturbance that diminishes the defendant’s capacity to form the required criminal intent
- Recognizes that an individual has the right to demonstrate that he or she is incapable of forming the intent required for the offense
*
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e SAGE Publishing, 2019
Intoxication
- Voluntary intoxication was not recognized as a defense under the early common law in England
- Involuntary intoxication is a defense to any and all criminal offenses in those instances that the defendant’s state of mind satisfies the standard for the insanity defense in the state
*
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e SAGE Publishing, 2019
Age
- Common law recognized three categories of increasing responsibility:
Under 7 years lack capacity to form intent
Between 7 and 14 assumed to lack capacity, but is rebuttable at court
Over 14 possess adult capacity
- There is a growing trend for state statutes to permit the criminal prosecution of any juvenile as an adult who is charged with a serious offense
*
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e SAGE Publishing, 2019
*
Duress
- Common law excused guilt from those who committed a crime to avoid imminent death or bodily harm
- People cannot be expected to act in a heroic fashion or resist threats of death or serious bodily harm
- Those who commit crime in response to a severe threat lack intent
- Those who commit crime under duress act in an involuntary manner
*
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e SAGE Publishing, 2019
*
Mistake of Law and Fact
- A mistake of fact constitutes a defense in those instances when the defendant’s mistake results in a lack of criminal intent
- Ignorantia lexis non excusat, “ignorance of the law is no excuse”
- People are expected to know the law
- Notice of new laws must be given to citizens
- Mistake must be honest and in good faith
*
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e SAGE Publishing, 2019
*
Entrapment
- American common law did not recognize the defense of entrapment. The fact that the government entrapped or induced a defendant to commit a crime was irrelevant in evaluating a defendant’s guilt or innocence
*
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e SAGE Publishing, 2019
Entrapment
- The subjective test
Focuses on the defendant
Did defendant possess a predisposition to commit the crime whether or not the government created the offense
- The objective test
Focuses on the conduct of the government
Did the conduct of the government fall below standards to which common feelings respond
*
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e SAGE Publishing, 2019
*
New Defenses
- Abuse
- XXY chromosome
- PMS
- Postpartum psychosis
- Environmental
- Sociological defenses
- Cultural defenses
*
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e SAGE Publishing, 2019
*
Open-Access Student Resources
- Quizzes
- eFlashcards
- SAGE journal articles
- Multimedia resources
- And more at
edge.sagepub.com/lippmanccl5e
*
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e
SAGE Publishing, 2019
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e SAGE Publishing, 2019