Rational capacity and criminal responsibility in the USA
The United States Supreme Court recently found that an insanity defense based upon moral incapacity was not constitutionally required. This decision allows states with a moral incapacity insanity defense, i.e., most states, to abolish their insanity defense. Unfortunately, the Court's opinion w...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of law and psychiatry 2022-07, Vol.83, p.101809-101809, Article 101809 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 101809 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 101809 |
container_title | International journal of law and psychiatry |
container_volume | 83 |
creator | Felthous, Alan R. |
description | The United States Supreme Court recently found that an insanity defense based upon moral incapacity was not constitutionally required. This decision allows states with a moral incapacity insanity defense, i.e., most states, to abolish their insanity defense. Unfortunately, the Court's opinion was based upon conflated concepts without considering irrationality, traditionally and universally the indispensable core element of insanity standards. This present perspective review attempts to clarify and disambiguate the critical concepts of instrumental and rational capacities as applied to insanity standards. With a proper understanding and application of these distinctly different capacities, insanity standards that at least incorporate rationality should in the future meet the Court's touchstone for determining constitutionally required due process. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ijlp.2022.101809 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2681048834</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0160252722000358</els_id><sourcerecordid>2681048834</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-e6415a0680fc24b8b88105bde94d0cc654474dfb5ab0112ec867c9671154063e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtLw0AUhQdRsFb_gKss3aTeeWQyBTel-IKCoHY9TG5ucEKaxJlU6L83Ia5dXTj3nAPnY-yWw4oD1_f1ytdNvxIgxCQYWJ-xBTe5TLU0-pwtRhOkIhP5JbuKsQYADVm-YObdDb5rXZOg6x364ZS4tkww-IOf1ECx79roC99MP98mwxcl-4_NNbuoXBPp5u8u2f7p8XP7ku7enl-3m12KUsohJa145kAbqFCowhTGcMiKktaqBESdKZWrsioyVwDngtDoHNc65zxToCXJJbube_vQfR8pDvbgI1LTuJa6Y7RCj4XKGKlGq5itGLoYA1W2H2e4cLIc7ITJ1nbCZCdMdsY0hh7mEI0jfjwFG9FTi1T6QDjYsvP_xX8B_StvLA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2681048834</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Rational capacity and criminal responsibility in the USA</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Felthous, Alan R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Felthous, Alan R.</creatorcontrib><description>The United States Supreme Court recently found that an insanity defense based upon moral incapacity was not constitutionally required. This decision allows states with a moral incapacity insanity defense, i.e., most states, to abolish their insanity defense. Unfortunately, the Court's opinion was based upon conflated concepts without considering irrationality, traditionally and universally the indispensable core element of insanity standards. This present perspective review attempts to clarify and disambiguate the critical concepts of instrumental and rational capacities as applied to insanity standards. With a proper understanding and application of these distinctly different capacities, insanity standards that at least incorporate rationality should in the future meet the Court's touchstone for determining constitutionally required due process.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0160-2527</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-6386</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2022.101809</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Criminal responsibility ; Diminished capacity ; Insanity defense ; Instrumental capacity ; Mens rea defense ; Psychopathy ; Psychosis ; Rational capacity</subject><ispartof>International journal of law and psychiatry, 2022-07, Vol.83, p.101809-101809, Article 101809</ispartof><rights>2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-e6415a0680fc24b8b88105bde94d0cc654474dfb5ab0112ec867c9671154063e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-e6415a0680fc24b8b88105bde94d0cc654474dfb5ab0112ec867c9671154063e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252722000358$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27903,27904,65309</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Felthous, Alan R.</creatorcontrib><title>Rational capacity and criminal responsibility in the USA</title><title>International journal of law and psychiatry</title><description>The United States Supreme Court recently found that an insanity defense based upon moral incapacity was not constitutionally required. This decision allows states with a moral incapacity insanity defense, i.e., most states, to abolish their insanity defense. Unfortunately, the Court's opinion was based upon conflated concepts without considering irrationality, traditionally and universally the indispensable core element of insanity standards. This present perspective review attempts to clarify and disambiguate the critical concepts of instrumental and rational capacities as applied to insanity standards. With a proper understanding and application of these distinctly different capacities, insanity standards that at least incorporate rationality should in the future meet the Court's touchstone for determining constitutionally required due process.</description><subject>Criminal responsibility</subject><subject>Diminished capacity</subject><subject>Insanity defense</subject><subject>Instrumental capacity</subject><subject>Mens rea defense</subject><subject>Psychopathy</subject><subject>Psychosis</subject><subject>Rational capacity</subject><issn>0160-2527</issn><issn>1873-6386</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEtLw0AUhQdRsFb_gKss3aTeeWQyBTel-IKCoHY9TG5ucEKaxJlU6L83Ia5dXTj3nAPnY-yWw4oD1_f1ytdNvxIgxCQYWJ-xBTe5TLU0-pwtRhOkIhP5JbuKsQYADVm-YObdDb5rXZOg6x364ZS4tkww-IOf1ECx79roC99MP98mwxcl-4_NNbuoXBPp5u8u2f7p8XP7ku7enl-3m12KUsohJa145kAbqFCowhTGcMiKktaqBESdKZWrsioyVwDngtDoHNc65zxToCXJJbube_vQfR8pDvbgI1LTuJa6Y7RCj4XKGKlGq5itGLoYA1W2H2e4cLIc7ITJ1nbCZCdMdsY0hh7mEI0jfjwFG9FTi1T6QDjYsvP_xX8B_StvLA</recordid><startdate>202207</startdate><enddate>202207</enddate><creator>Felthous, Alan R.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202207</creationdate><title>Rational capacity and criminal responsibility in the USA</title><author>Felthous, Alan R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-e6415a0680fc24b8b88105bde94d0cc654474dfb5ab0112ec867c9671154063e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Criminal responsibility</topic><topic>Diminished capacity</topic><topic>Insanity defense</topic><topic>Instrumental capacity</topic><topic>Mens rea defense</topic><topic>Psychopathy</topic><topic>Psychosis</topic><topic>Rational capacity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Felthous, Alan R.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International journal of law and psychiatry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Felthous, Alan R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Rational capacity and criminal responsibility in the USA</atitle><jtitle>International journal of law and psychiatry</jtitle><date>2022-07</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>83</volume><spage>101809</spage><epage>101809</epage><pages>101809-101809</pages><artnum>101809</artnum><issn>0160-2527</issn><eissn>1873-6386</eissn><abstract>The United States Supreme Court recently found that an insanity defense based upon moral incapacity was not constitutionally required. This decision allows states with a moral incapacity insanity defense, i.e., most states, to abolish their insanity defense. Unfortunately, the Court's opinion was based upon conflated concepts without considering irrationality, traditionally and universally the indispensable core element of insanity standards. This present perspective review attempts to clarify and disambiguate the critical concepts of instrumental and rational capacities as applied to insanity standards. With a proper understanding and application of these distinctly different capacities, insanity standards that at least incorporate rationality should in the future meet the Court's touchstone for determining constitutionally required due process.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.ijlp.2022.101809</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0160-2527 |
ispartof | International journal of law and psychiatry, 2022-07, Vol.83, p.101809-101809, Article 101809 |
issn | 0160-2527 1873-6386 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2681048834 |
source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
subjects | Criminal responsibility Diminished capacity Insanity defense Instrumental capacity Mens rea defense Psychopathy Psychosis Rational capacity |
title | Rational capacity and criminal responsibility in the USA |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T21%3A55%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Rational%20capacity%20and%20criminal%20responsibility%20in%20the%20USA&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20law%20and%20psychiatry&rft.au=Felthous,%20Alan%20R.&rft.date=2022-07&rft.volume=83&rft.spage=101809&rft.epage=101809&rft.pages=101809-101809&rft.artnum=101809&rft.issn=0160-2527&rft.eissn=1873-6386&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ijlp.2022.101809&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2681048834%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2681048834&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0160252722000358&rfr_iscdi=true |