Everything about Diminished Responsibility totally explained
In
criminal law,
diminished responsibility (or
diminished capacity) is a potential
defense by
excuse by which
defendants argue that although they broke the
law, they shouldn't be held
criminally liable for doing so, as their mental functions were "diminished" or impaired. The defence's acceptance in American jurisdictions vary considerably. The majority of states have adopted it by statute or case decision, and a minority even recognise broader defences such as 'irresistible impulse.' Some American states restrict the defence to the charge of murder only where a successful defence will result in a manslaughter conviction instead of murder. Until recently, the Republic of Ireland didn't accept the partial defence. The Irish Supreme Court had rejected the existence of the defence in
The People (DPP) v Joseph O' Mahony [1984] ILRM 244. The case was recently abrogated, however, by enactment of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006, effective
1 June 2006. The act, in pertinent part, specifically adopted the partial defence for the charge of murder where a successful defence will result in a manslaughter conviction instead of murder.
Discussion
This is an aspect of a more general
insanity defense (see the
M'Naghten Rules). Peter Arenella, in the
Columbia Law Review (
1977 p.830), stated, "the defense [ofdiminished responsibility]...was first recognized by
Scottish common law to reduce the
punishment of the
'partially insane'." It developed from the practice of juries in the 19th century of returning verdicts of guilty with a recommendation as to mercy or mitigation of sentence to reflect any extenuating circumstances. In a series of decisions, given mainly by Lord Deas, a doctrine grew that various types of mental weakness could have the effect of reducing what would otherwise be a conviction for
murder (which attracted
capital punishment) to one for culpable homicide (where the courts had greater discretion in sentencing). An example of a "diminished capacity" might be extremely low
intelligence. In the English case of
R v Raven (1982) Crim. LR 51 a man who had a physical age of 22 years but a mental age of only 9 years was provoked by homosexual attacks and killed the attacker. His mental deficiency wasn't in dispute and, since a child of 9 years wouldn't have been criminally responsible (see s50 Children and Young Persons Act 1933), and his mental responsibility for his acts was substantially impaired, manslaughter was the only realistic verdict. The rationale of the defense is that, as a precondition to
punishment, the criminal law requires conduct to be voluntary. If something interferes with the capacity of the individual to choose to break the law, this should be reflected by an excuse or exculpation. The law should balance the need to be fair to the individual wrongdoer, but equally offer some protection to
society from a person who may not have complete control over their behavior.
The effect of the defense varies between the
jurisdictions. In some, it'll result in full excuse and therefore produce a verdict of "
not guilty". In others, it offers only exculpation to a degree, resulting in the substitution of a lesser offence (for example,
manslaughter instead of murder) or a mitigated
sentence.
California was the first state in the U.S. to adopt the diminished capacity defense, beginning with
People v. Wells, 202 P.2d 53 (1949), and
People v. Gorshen, 336 P.2d 492 (1959)
(External Link
). The doctrine would soon be abolished by
ballot initiative in 1982 following the negative publicity surrounding the case of
Dan White, who had
killed George Moscone and Harvey Milk. While White's defense team did argue successfully for a ruling of diminished capacity, resulting in a verdict of
voluntary manslaughter rather than
murder, an
urban legend that the defense had blamed White's actions on the ingestion of sugar and
junk food (the so-called "
Twinkie defense") sprang up out of inaccurate media coverage. One participant in the debate over diminished capacity rulings waved a Twinkie in the air to make his point.
Currently, the
California Penal Code states (
2002), "The defense of diminished capacity is hereby abolished ... there shall be no defense of diminished capacity, diminished responsibility, or
irresistible impulse..."
English law
» For the full page, see diminished responsibility in English law
Scottish law
During the course of the 20th century the courts began to limit the mental conditions falling within diminished responsibility. In
HM Advocate v Savage (1923) JC 49 Lord Alness addressed the jury (at 51):
» It is very difficult to it put in a phrase, but it has been put in this way: that there must be aberration or weakness of mind; that there must be some form of mental unsoundness; that there must be a state of mind which is bordering on, though not amounting to, insanity; that there must be a mind so affected that responsibility is diminished from full responsibility to partial responsibility. In other words, the prisoner in question must be only partially accountable for his actions. And I think one can see running through the cases that there's implied ... that there must be some form of mental disease.
This statement became the authoritative version of the test for diminished responsibility and the various factors mentioned by Lord Alness were regarded as being cumulative in nature. The effect was that the test became difficult to satisfy, and the courts adopted the position that the scope of the plea wasn't to be further widened (for example
Carraher v HM Advocate (1946) JC 108 held that the plea wasn't available to a person suffering from psychopathic personality. But in
Galbraith v HM Advocate (2002) JC 1 it was held that the formula in
Savage wasn't to be read in a narrow sense, and it wasn't necessary that all the criteria in that formula had to be present. Furthermore, although the plea had to be
based on some form of mental abnormality, that condition need not be one bordering on insanity. Instead the court ruled that diminished responsibility required the existence of an abnormality of mind which had the effect that the accused's ability to determine or control his actings was substantially impaired. However, the Court excluded from the scope of the plea:
- any condition brought on by the consumption of drink or drugs, and
- psychopathic personality disorder.
At present, Diminished Responsibility exists as a statutory partial defence in most Australian jurisdictions. The defence is only available in cases of murder and serves to reduce the offence to manslaughter.
For a comprehensive summary, see Law Commission.
Partial Defences to Murder: Overseas Studies Consultation Paper No 173 (Appendices)
(External Link)Further Information
Get more info on 'Diminished Responsibility'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://diminished_responsibility.totallyexplained.com">Diminished responsibility Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
