Evaluation of Insanity & Intoxication
- Created by: samia
- Created on: 03-01-15 15:14
View mindmap
- Evaluation of Defences
- Intoxication
- based on public policy. need to balance D + V's rights.
- if IT was always a defence, V's right not protected
- Majewski- held being intoxicated, D was taking a general risk of comitting crime. basic intent = reckless is enough
- REFORM: consider whether D would have realised the risk if he had not been intoxicated
- problem: doesn't take into account individual factors/situations
- based on public policy. need to balance D + V's rights.
- Insanity
- definition medically irrelevant, court doesn't cover those medically insane
- M'Naughten rules (Byrne) unable to control himself)
- legal definition is old, new developments not taken into account
- Royal Commission said it was "obsolete and misleading"
- psychiatric illness was not understood at the time yet still no changes, though improvements in diagnosis and understand of it
- insanity and automatism interwined, only diff internal and external factors
- illogical distinctions (Quick + Hennessy) both diabetics but only 1 succeeded as forgot insulin
- "insanity" carried social stigma. inappropriate for diabetics
- too wide. as includes physical illnesses such as diabetes (Hennessy), heart disease (Kemp), and sleep walkers (Burgess).
- REFORM: Butler Committee- place burden of proof on prosecution. proof of severe mental disorder should be enough
- problem: assumes lack of criminal resp.
- definition medically irrelevant, court doesn't cover those medically insane
- Intoxication
Similar Law resources:
Teacher recommended
Comments
No comments have yet been made