Constitutional Rights of the Mentally Ill: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eighty-seventh Congress, First Session
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961 - 825 Seiten
Was andere dazu sagen - Rezension schreiben
Es wurden keine Rezensionen gefunden.
Andere Ausgaben - Alle anzeigen
action Administration admission American appear application Association attorney authorities believe called civil commitment committee competent concerned condition confinement consider constitutional counsel course court CREECH crime criminal dangerous defendant determine discharge District of Columbia Doctor effect evidence examination experience fact Federal feel field give given Government hearing incompetent individual insanity interest issue Judge judicial jury letter matter mean mental health mental hospital mental institutions mentally ill Miss necessary notice OVERHOLSER patient period person physicians possible practice present problem procedures proceedings protect psychiatric psychiatrists question reason receive record relative release require responsibility rule Senator Ervin Senator HRUSKA Senator KEATING social society staff statement statute Thank thing tion treat treatment trial United Veterans voluntary
Seite 794 - ... to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a, defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it. that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
Seite 469 - Lordships inquiries are confined to those persons who labour under such partial delusions only, and are not in other respects insane, we are of opinion that, notwithstanding the party accused did the act complained of with a view, under the influence of insane delusion, of redressing or revenging some supposed grievance or injury, or of producing some public benefit, he is nevertheless punishable according to the nature of the crime committed, if he knew at the time of committing such crime that...
Seite 355 - It is the right of the lawyer to undertake the defense of a person accused of crime, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused; otherwise innocent persons, victims only of suspicious circumstances, might be denied proper defense. Having undertaken such defense, the lawyer is bound by all fair and honorable means, to present every defense that the law of the land permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.
Seite 794 - The mode of putting the latter part of the question to the jury on these occasions has generally been, whether the accused at the time of doing the act knew the difference between right and wrong; which mode, though rarely, if ever, leading to any mistake with the jury, is not...
Seite 785 - ... that, to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act ; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
Seite 744 - No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.
Seite 396 - Administration facilities, may furnish domiciliary care to — (1) a veteran who was discharged or released from the active military, naval, or air service for a disability incurred or aggravated in line of duty, or...
Seite 357 - The mere ability to distinguish right from wrong is no longer the correct test either in civil or criminal cases, where the defense of insanity is interposed. The accepted rule in this day and age, with the great advancement in medical science as an enlightening influence on this subject, is that the accused must be capable, not only of distinguishing between right and wrong, but that he was not impelled to do the act by an irresistible impulse, which means before it will justify a verdict of acquittal...