Posted by Mitchell on March 11, 2002, at 21:28:42
In reply to Re: Andrea knew what she was doing, posted by trouble on March 10, 2002, at 18:09:18
If you are studying criminal law, maybe you can answer this, trouble, and if not, maybe it will provide material for study or contemplation, (and if not that, at least it is another interesting post to read)
The standard of insanity as a criminal defense was first defined in the McNaughton rule, but after the Supremes revisited the matter, there was the Durham rule and then the Brawner and Ali rules. Is Ali the standard Texas courts use? If not, what?
McNaughton was flawed, IMO, in that it presumes humans know right from wrong. My premise is that humans only relate righteousness and wrongfulness to a context. In the proper context, the most egregious acts can seem right. But the Ali rule tends to avoid that dilemma by saying that a defendant must appreciate the criminality of their acts. In cases where Ali is the precedent, are jurors instructed to equate criminality with wrongfulness? I think so. If it is so, a belief contrary to the prevailing belief of right and wrong would not qualify for the insanity defense. As long as the defendant knows that society, through the laws of the land, prohibited say, killing five of one's own children, then it would not matter what might be the defendant's cosmological idea of right and wrong.
Is this consistent with your knowledge of how Ali, or the insanity defense, is being applied, trouble? Anybody?
poster:Mitchell
thread:19491
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020305/msgs/19677.html