Insanity Defense
- This is a preview of the essay.
To view the full text you must login!
Both statutory law and the common law provide many defenses to crime. Other than having an alibi (which is not technically a defense but a denial), there are two main types of defenses: (1) Justifications and (2) Excuses. These terms are not easily defined, and the distinction is less than perfect. Justifications refer to situations in which the defendant doesn't deny they did it but that they did it for all the right reasons, an appeal to higher loyalty or ideals (as in self-defense) or more important reasons (as in necessity), for instance. Excuses refer to situations in which the defendant also doesn't deny they did it but that they are not responsible for it (as in insanity or diminished capacity defenses), typically on grounds of lacking volition over their free will. Sometimes, it's said that Justifications involve denying mens rea and Excuses involve denying actus reus, but the mind-body connection is complicated in this regard, and this saying can confuse you. Take sleepwalking, for instance, which might be treated as the inability to form mental intent although it's the body (which is asleep). The law also tends to think of "mental" disorder as brain disorder, to avoid metaphysical debates over whether or not it's possible for something invisible like a "mind" to get sick one can formulate at least five different classes of defenses:
defenses that involve protecting competing interests; self-defense, defense of others, etc. where society excuses what would otherwise be a crime
defenses involving avoidance of a greater evil; necessity or duress, e.g...