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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of law and psychiatry 2022-07, Vol.83, p.101809-101809, Article 101809
1. Verfasser: Felthous, Alan R.
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