Claimedunsoundmindconvicted appealedbasedonneedfornew

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: cized as too restrictive Durham Rule Monte Durham 1954 robbed house. Claimed unsound mind. Convicted. Appealed based on need for new standards Judge Bazelon reviewed insanity issue Ordered new trial. Durham Rule Accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or mental defect Also called “product rule” Too loose Used only in New Hampshire Brawner Rule American Law Institute (ALI) 2 prongs Can’t appreciate wrongfulness Can’t conform Not responsible if “at the time of such conduct as a result of a mental disorder or defect (lacks) substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law” Brawner Rule cont. Used in 21 states Both cognitive (appreciate) and volitional (conform) Insanity defense failures Jack Ruby (Oswald) Sirhan Sirhan (R. Kennedy) John Wayne Gacy (boys) Jeffrey Dahmer (boys) Insanity Defense successes Ed Gein (Silence of the Lambs) John W....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/14/2011 for the course PSYC 372 taught by Professor Heath during the Spring '11 term at Loyola Chicago.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online