Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law and Psychology Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 9 of 9

Full-Text Articles in Law and Psychology

Insanity And Incompetency: Courts, Communities, And The Intersections Of Mental Illness And Criminal Justice In The Wake Of Kahler And Trueblood, Gwendolyn West Oct 2023

Insanity And Incompetency: Courts, Communities, And The Intersections Of Mental Illness And Criminal Justice In The Wake Of Kahler And Trueblood, Gwendolyn West

Golden Gate University Law Review

Today, people with mental illnesses in the United States are ten times more likely to be incarcerated than hospitalized. About 20 percent of the United States population experiences some kind of mental illness each year, and about 3 to 5 percent of the population experiences a severe and persistent mental illness. By contrast, more than 60 percent of jail inmates and at least 45 percent of prison inmates in the United States have a diagnosed mental illness. Studies have found that anywhere from 25 percent to 71 percent of people with serious mental illness in a given community have a …


Avoiding The Question: The Court's Decision To Leave The Insanity Defense In State Hands In Kahler V. Kansas, Elissa Crowder Aug 2021

Avoiding The Question: The Court's Decision To Leave The Insanity Defense In State Hands In Kahler V. Kansas, Elissa Crowder

Pepperdine Law Review

This Note will further investigate how the Court reached the correct holding that Kansas's statute does not violate the Due Process Clause. Part II gives historical background of the evolution of the insanity defense and its varied application. Part III recounts Kahler's story and the procedural history leading up to this opinion. Part IV analyzes how the majority reached its conclusion and the counterarguments presented by the dissent. Part V concludes by acknowledging this case will add to state freedom in formulating insanity defenses, but that its actual impact is uncertain because the Court avoided answering whether states can eliminate …


Mistreating A Symptom: The Legitimizing Of Mandatory, Indefinite Commitment Of Insanity Acquittees - Jones V. United States, Paul S. Avilla Feb 2013

Mistreating A Symptom: The Legitimizing Of Mandatory, Indefinite Commitment Of Insanity Acquittees - Jones V. United States, Paul S. Avilla

Pepperdine Law Review

At the end of the 1982 term, in Jones v. United States, the United States Supreme Court upheld a District of Columbia statute requiring the automatic and indefinite commitment of persons acquitted by reason of insanity. While under the D.C. statute the acquittee is periodically given the opportunity to gain release, the practice of involuntarily confining someone who has been acquitted raises serious due process and equal protection issues. This note examines the Court's analysis of these issues, focusing on a comparison of the elements necessary for an insanity defense with the showing required by the due process clause for …


Avoiding The Insanity Defense Strait Jacket: The Mens Rea Route, Harlow M. Huckabee Jan 2013

Avoiding The Insanity Defense Strait Jacket: The Mens Rea Route, Harlow M. Huckabee

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Evidence Of Mental Disorder On Mens Rea: Constitutionality Of Drawing The Line At The Insanity Defense , Harlow M. Huckabee Jan 2013

Evidence Of Mental Disorder On Mens Rea: Constitutionality Of Drawing The Line At The Insanity Defense , Harlow M. Huckabee

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Dangerous Psychopaths: Criminally Responsible But Not Morally Responsible, Subject To Criminal Punishment And To Preventive Detention, Ken Levy Dec 2011

Dangerous Psychopaths: Criminally Responsible But Not Morally Responsible, Subject To Criminal Punishment And To Preventive Detention, Ken Levy

San Diego Law Review

How should we judge psychopaths, both morally and in the criminal justice system? This Article will argue that psychopaths are often not morally responsible for their bad acts simply because they cannot understand, and therefore be guided by, moral reasons.

Scholars and lawyers who endorse the same conclusion automatically tend to infer from this premise that psychopaths should not be held criminally punishable for their criminal acts. These scholars and lawyers are making this assumption (that just criminal punishment requires moral responsibility) on the basis of one of two deeper assumptions: that either criminal punishment directly requires moral responsibility or …


The Andrea Yates Case: Insanity On Trial, Phillip J. Resnick Jan 2007

The Andrea Yates Case: Insanity On Trial, Phillip J. Resnick

Cleveland State Law Review

On June 20, 2001, Andrea Yates drowned each of her five children in her bathtub. The nation struggled to understand how a loving mother could systematically kill her children in apparent cold blood. No crime evokes more intense feelings than a mother killing her own children. There was extraordinary media coverage of her trial in Houston, Texas in 2002. Her defense attorneys, George Parnham and Wendell Odom entered a defense of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) to multiple counts of first degree murder with death penalty specifications. The 2002 trial jury verdict of guilty was overturned on appeal. …


Cognitive Dissonance: Have Insanity Defense And Civil Commitment Reforms Made A Difference, John Q. La Fond, Mary L. Durham Jan 1994

Cognitive Dissonance: Have Insanity Defense And Civil Commitment Reforms Made A Difference, John Q. La Fond, Mary L. Durham

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.


Book Review: H. Fingarette & A. Fingarette Hasse, Mental Disabilities And Criminal Responsibilities, John Q. La Fond Jan 1979

Book Review: H. Fingarette & A. Fingarette Hasse, Mental Disabilities And Criminal Responsibilities, John Q. La Fond

Seattle University Law Review

Whether mental illness and related impairments in the human psyche should affect an individual's criminal responsibilityfor law-breaking behavior has always provoked intense andwide-ranging debate. This debate clearly reflects society's lack of consensus concerning the appropriateness and scope of considering mental impairment in assessing individual criminal responsiblility. Thus, it is not unexpected that recently proposals to abolish the insanity defense have been seriously suggested or that noted scholars have urged society to place the disposition of mentally ill offenders in the exclusive hands of experts. That this heated discussion continues unabated should come as no surprise, since legal doctrines which excuse …