Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyse how novel homicide defences predicated on contemporary neuroscience align with legal insanity.

Doctrinal analysis, systematic investigation of relevant statutes and cases, was used to elucidate how the law of insanity is evolving. Cases represent the first recorded instance of a particular neuroscientific defence. US appellate cases were categorised according to the mechanism of action of neurotransmitter relied upon in court. A case study approach was also used to provide a contextualised understanding of the case outcome in depth.

Findings broadly depict how the employment of expert testimony runs parallel with our contemporary understanding of key neurotransmitters and their function in human behaviour. Generally, medico-legal evidence concerning neuromodulating agents and violent behaviour was inconclusive. However, the outcome of defence strategy may depend on the underlying neurotransmitter involved.

This study shows that as more discoveries are made about the neurobiological underpinnings of human behaviour; this new knowledge will continue to seep into the US court system as innovative defence strategies with varying success. Medical and legal practitioners may gauge the success of a defence depending on the neuromodulating agent.

Many scholars have focused on the role of neuroimaging as neuroscientific evidence and how it is used is shaping US criminal jurisprudence. To the best of the author’s knowledge, no study has incorporated the true origin of neuroscientific evidence as being underpinned by the understanding of neurotransmitters.

The criminal justice system uses oversimplified stock narratives that place women who kill into limiting categories of ‘bad’, ‘mad’ and/or ‘victim’. These narratives deny women's agency by portraying their actions as lacking humanity, rationality and/or intentionality. Many feminist scholars argue that new narratives are needed to recognise women who kill as fully human, volitional subjects. This chapter uses the case of Maria Barberi to examine why and how defences founded on a victim-based agency fail. In 1895, Barberi killed Domenico Cataldo in a Manhattan barroom after enduring months of psychological, physical and sexual abuse. Her defence was grounded in the unwritten law – a widely held belief that people had the right to avenge their honour (when impugned by infidelity, seduction or sexual assault) with lethal violence. The case went through four stages: the initial trial, resulting in a murder conviction and death sentence; a nation-wide clemency campaign; an appeal; and a retrial, resulting in an acquittal. Throughout this process, Barberi's agency was undermined by negative stereotypes of gender and ethnicity, the political goals of women's rights activists, and Barberi's own self-interests. Ultimately, this case demonstrates that agency-based narratives are both difficult to deploy and desperately needed.

Anatomy of a Murder, a beloved, highly influential, seemingly liberal 1959 classic law-film seems to appropriate some of the fading western genre’s features and social functions, intertwining the professional-plot western formula with a hero-lawyer variation on the classic western hero character, America’s 19th century archetypal True Man. In so doing, Anatomy revives the western genre’s honor code, embracing it into the hero-lawyer law-film. Concurrently, it accommodates the development of cinematic imagery of the emerging, professional elite groups, offering the public the notion of the professional super-lawyer, integrating legal professionalism with natural justice. In the course of establishing its Herculean lawyer, the film constitutes its female protagonist as a potential threat, subjecting her to a cinematic judgment of her sexual character and reinforcing the honor-based notion of woman’s sexual-guilt.

The International Criminal Court has institutionalized the concept of individual responsibility for human rights violations. The jurisprudence of international criminal law has developed along with the institution. Affirmative defenses in the mitigation of punishment or avoidance of responsibility are becoming increasingly important in international criminal procedure. We contend that diminished culpability based on advances in neuroscience provides the most challenging set of choices for the international legal community. Of the variety of affirmative defenses, emerging neuroscience-based defense provide the most challenging set of choices for the international legal community. The Esad Landzo case at the ICTY brings these challenges into focus. We discuss the difficult choices the International Criminal Court will have to make to balance the rights and needs of the victims and the due process rights of the accused.

In Canada, if it can be proven that a defendant was suffering from a mental disorder at the time they committed an offense, they can be found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD). These cases are often decided by jury. The purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of the dark triad (DT), social dominance orientation (SDO) and belief in a just world (BJW) on undergraduate students’ attitudes toward the NCRMD defense.

A total of 421 undergraduate students completed questionnaires measuring SDO and the DT. After being primed for high, low or neutral BJW, they indicated their attitudes toward NCRMD.

The BJW manipulation had no effect on attitudes. High-SDO/DT participants held less favorable attitudes toward NCRMD than participants who scored low on these variables, F(1, 420)=20.65, p<0.01, η p 2 = 0.05 . Psychology and criminology students had significantly more favorable attitudes toward NCRMD than business students.

This study can be helpful in improving jury impartiality in trials involving mental illness and criminal responsibility; assessment of SDO and the DT; awareness of career roles relating to insanity defense bias; and improving the voir dire process.

The results of this study may be used to improve the voir dire process in trials involving the issue of mental illness and criminal responsibility and to preserve the impartiality of the jurors selected for these trials.

This chapter compares a ‘deific decree’ insanity case with constitutional originalism debates as a way to understand the boundaries of the legal person and the nature of law. The criminal defendant who claims innocence on the ground that ‘God told me to’ does not embody a conflict between law and religion, but a conflict between law’s demand for intersubjectivity and the subjectivity of a ‘higher truth known only to me’. In the same way, the originalist interpreter of the constitution rejects precedent in favour of a higher truth that need not be ‘like’ anything before. One approach to broaching this conflict between law and revelation is to understand law’s domain as temporal and incomplete – to imagine a humble rather than absolute law. On this view, the person is also not ‘absolute subjectivity’, but is compelled by legal fidelity to treat like alike and therefore under an obligation to imagine a ‘me’ as ‘we’. Or, to put it another way, to bring the person and the law into relationship is to reject a ‘revelatory’ interpretation of ‘original’ or ‘divine’ law in favour of an incompletely intersubjective common law that links me to we through customs and time. At the same time, by acknowledging law’s incompleteness, we can see unreasonable revelation sometimes as a possibility and not always as an insanity.

This paper aims to examine the ways in which the criminal justice system has evolved to accommodate mental illness. Mental health courts are one such alternative; these courts actively seek rehabilitative and therapeutic outcomes for participants. However, current literature suggests that these courts are ineffective for offenders who have been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD).

The aim of the current inquiry was to determine the degree to which participation in the Assessment and Referral Court (ARC) List in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria reduced re-offending rates for offenders diagnosed with BPD by providing a comparative analysis of pre and post ARC List offending.

The results of a two-year recidivism study suggest that successful completion of the ARC List reduces recidivism for 50% of offenders diagnosed with BPD.

To the authoring team’s knowledge, this is the second paper to explore the efficacy of the Assessment of Referral Court List (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria) in reducing recidivist behaviours for programme participants; however, it is the first paper to look specifically at the recidivist behaviours of participants of the Assessment of Referral Court List (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria) who have been diagnosed with BPD.