criminal law

profiledeefer
Lippman5e_PPT09.ppt
Home>Law homework help>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

*

Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e

SAGE Publishing, 2019

Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, 5e SAGE Publishing, 2019