Crim_Law_Unknown6 - Diminished Capacity a. Jurisdictions...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
8. Diminished Capacity a. Jurisdictions divided on applicability on this. b. Majority holds not adequate for insanity defense b/c shadings of intelligence creates vagueness of standards. 9. Involuntary Action—D should be aquitted b/c no criminal act. When D acts involuntarily, use automatism rather than insanity defense b/c insanity defense leads to mental institutions except juries tend to think Invol. Defenses are fake—more than insanity ones. a. Examples of involuntary actions (rare)—unusual reactions to prescription drugs; drinking what you do not know is alcohol. b. Examples of voluntary act—if you know you are drinking some alcohol and are mistaken on the amount or concentration (no defense). c . Intoxication Defense —same as insanity, but no confinement. Must be involuntary intoxication where D is unaware of actions or prolonged alcohol abuse. 1. Volunt. Intox defense remits you to insanity defenses. 2. MPC View—voluntary intox. Is not any excuse to crime unless purpose or knowledge obliterated 3. Majority View—voluntary intox. May only negate the existence of specific intent crimes. (Disadvantage—hard to classify crimes.) 4. Voluntary Intox. Treated like diminished capacity how does it affect the mens rea? Is M.R. requirement of offense? a. cant use as defense in general intent crimes but can in specific intent crimes. 4. When produces delirium, can be treated as a mental defect. d. Drug Addiction—no defense b/c generally it is D’s fault; why immunize addicts when crim. Sanctions on even possessing substances; more of an irresistible impulse than cognitive. e. Infancy 1. at C/L, under 7 inability to form crim. Intention, by 14 fully responsible as an adult, between 7-14 rebuttable presumption of infancy (crude estimations) 2. Today, juvenile systems eliminate rule unless D waives right. F. RECKLESS OR NEGLIGENT KILLINGS (CLASS II) 1. Reckless Killings – generally manslaughter (note—volunt. Intox. No defense here) a. Probability of harm – reasonable person POV b. Extent of harm -- # of victims c. Advertence – did D really consider all the risks? d. Generally something more than negligence is required and MPC requires advertence. e. Special, misc. factors which aggravate or mitigate the case. (ex: d belongs to certain tribe w/ diff. Social rules.) 2. Depraved Heart – Extreme indifference to life (substitute for malice) 2 nd degree murder (based on element of viciousness) a. No utility in action; no attempt to minimize risk b. Contrib. Negligence is irrelevant. c. MPC—D is guilty of murder if he has acted “recklessly under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life” d. 4 factors evaluated by jury in determination: 1. Social utility of actor’s conduct (jury must consider defenses; provoc., necessity, S/D) 2. Magnitude of risk conduct creates (Nature of foreseeable harm & likelihood of result. Harm. ) 3. Actor’s knowledge of risk. G. ACTUS REUS OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE—CAUSATION
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/03/2010 for the course LAW 28465 taught by Professor Carson during the Fall '09 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Page1 / 6

Crim_Law_Unknown6 - Diminished Capacity a. Jurisdictions...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online