DSpace Repository

The Two Faces of Insanity

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Loewy, Arnold H.
dc.date.accessioned 2011-03-31T17:03:28Z
dc.date.available 2011-03-31T17:03:28Z
dc.date.issued 2009
dc.identifier.citation 42 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 513 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10601/1334
dc.description.abstract One of the great debates surrounding insanity is whether it is an excuse for criminal defendants designed to exculpate otherwise guilty people or whether it is a device used by the government to inculpate otherwise innocent people. The short answer is both. Sometimes, insanity is used to exculpate someone who is otherwise guilty, while other times, the state successfully chooses to punish those who, because of their insane delusions, lack criminal intent. In my view, insanity should rarely exculpate and never implicate. Thus, on the one hand, when insanity is invoked as a defense by one who has been proven guilty of the requisite mens rea and actus reus for the crime, insanity should rarely, if ever, exculpate. On the other hand, when the defendant lacks the requisite mens rea to commit the crime, whether because of insanity or any other non-self-induced reason, the defendant should not be guilty.
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Texas Tech Law Review
dc.relation.uri http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/text42&id=517&collection=journals&index=journals/text
dc.relation.uri https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/I49320bcc005911df9b8c850332338889/View/FullText.html
dc.relation.uri https://advance.lexis.com/api/document/collection/analytical-materials/id/4Y4W-J3D0-00CT-V02V-00000-00?context=1000516
dc.relation.uri http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1639095
dc.subject Criminal law en_US
dc.subject Insanity defense en_US
dc.title The Two Faces of Insanity en_US
dc.type Article en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record