Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Abolition Of The Insanity Defense Violates Due Process, Stephen J. Morse, Richard J. Bonnie
Abolition Of The Insanity Defense Violates Due Process, Stephen J. Morse, Richard J. Bonnie
All Faculty Scholarship
This article, which is based on and expands on an amicus brief the authors submitted to the United States Supreme Court, first provides the moral argument in favor of the insanity defense. It considers and rejects the most important moral counterargument and suggests that jurisdictions have considerable leeway in deciding what test best meets their legal and moral policies. The article then discusses why the two primary alternatives to the insanity defense, the negation of mens rea and considering mental disorder at sentencing, are insufficient to achieve the goal of responding justly to severely mentally disordered offenders. The last section …
Competing Conceptions Of Modern Desert: Vengeful, Deontological, And Empirical, Paul H. Robinson
Competing Conceptions Of Modern Desert: Vengeful, Deontological, And Empirical, Paul H. Robinson
All Faculty Scholarship
The dispute over the role desert should play, if any, in assessing criminal liability and punishment has a long and turbulent history. There is some indication that deserved punishment -- referred to variously as desert, just punishment, retributive punishment, or simply doing justice -- may be in ascendance, both in academic debate and in real world institutions. A number of modern sentencing guidelines have adopted it as their distributive principle. Desert is increasingly given deference in the purposes section of state criminal codes, where it can be the guiding principle in the interpretation and application of the code's provisions. Indeed, …
The Role Of Harm And Evil In Criminal Law: A Study In Legislative Deception?, Paul H. Robinson
The Role Of Harm And Evil In Criminal Law: A Study In Legislative Deception?, Paul H. Robinson
All Faculty Scholarship
What is the role of the occurrence of harm or evil in criminal law? What should it be? Answers to these questions commonly use the distinction between what is called an objective and a subjective view of criminality. To oversimplify, the objective view maintains that the occurrence of the harm or evil defined by the offense is highly relevant. The subjectivist view maintains that such harm or evil is irrelevant; only the actor's culpable state of mind regarding the occurrence of the harm or evil is important. The labels tend to overstate a rather subtle distinction. The objectivist or harmful …