Insanity Defense in Federal Courts: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session, on H.R. 6783 and Related Bills ... July 21, 22; August 12, 17; and September 9, 1982
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983 - 465 Seiten
Was andere dazu sagen - Rezension schreiben
Es wurden keine Rezensionen gefunden.
Andere Ausgaben - Alle anzeigen
abolish acquitted acquittees approach Association Attorney behavior believe bill burden burden of proof capacity Chairman charged civil commitment committee concern condition conduct confusing Congress constitutional continue convicted CONYERS court crime criminal criminal justice dangerous decision defendant's definition determine effect element evidence examination expert fact Federal give going Government guilty but mentally guilty by reason hearing Hinckley hospital important individual insanity defense intent issue Jersey judge jury lack legislation limit matter McCOLLUM mental disease mental health mentally ill Michigan mind moral offense opinion period person plea present prison problem procedures proposals prosecution protection prove psychiatric psychiatrists punishment question raised reason of insanity release responsibility result rule Senate sentence society standard subcommittee suggest testify testimony Thank tion treatment trial ultimate United verdict witnesses wrong
Seite 10 - ... 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 he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
Seite 10 - ... the jurors ought to be told in all cases that every man is to be presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction...
Seite 11 - Can a medical man conversant with the disease of insanity, who never saw the prisoner previously to the trial, but who was present during the whole trial and the examination of all the witnesses, be asked his opinion as to the state of the prisoner's mind at the time of the commission of the alleged crime? or his opinion whether the prisoner was conscious at the time of doing the act that he was acting contrary to law, or whether he was labouring under any and what delusion at the time?
Seite 180 - ... (B) his capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law...
Seite 161 - ... in order to constitute a crime, a person must have intelligence and capacity enough to have a criminal intent and purpose; and if his reason and mental powers are either so deficient that he has no will, no conscience, or controlling mental power, or if, through the overwhelming violence of mental disease, his intellectual power is for the time obliterated, he is not a responsible moral agent, and is not punishable for criminal acts.
Seite 277 - The report of the presentence investigation shall contain any prior criminal record of the defendant and such information about his characteristics, his financial condition and the circumstances affecting his behavior as may be helpful in imposing sentence or in granting probation or in the correctional treatment of the defendant, and such other information as may be required by the court.
Seite 453 - But in the exercise of this high power, we must be ever on our guard, lest we erect our prejudices into legal principles. If we would guide by the light of reason, we must let our minds be bold.
Seite 104 - Except as provided in subdivision (b), testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.
Seite 367 - Court shall order his discharge or his release on such conditions as the Court determines to be necessary. If the Court is not so satisfied, it shall promptly order a hearing to determine whether such person may safely be discharged or released.