Evil Or Ill?: Justifying the Insanity Defence
Lawrie Reznek addresses these questions and more in his controversial investigation of the insanity defense in Evil or Ill? Drawing from countless intriguing case examples, he aims to understand the concept of an excuse, and explains why the law excuses certain actions and not others. In his easily accessible and elegant style, he explains that in law, there exists two excuses derived from Aristotle: the excuses of ignorance and compulsion. Reznek, however proposes a third excuse - the excuse of character change. In introducing this third excuse, Reznek raises a controversial possibility - the abolition of the insanity defence.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
The legal and medical paradigms
A HISTORY OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
A TAXONOMY OF DEFENCES
IGNORANCE AS AN EXCUSE
COMPULSION AS AN EXCUSE
AUTOMATISM AS AN EXCUSE
THE JUSTIFICATION OF EXCUSES
CAUSALITY AS AN EXCUSE
THE REDUCTIONIST THEORY
Other editions - View all
ability abnormal acquittees acter actions agent argues As-if Rule automatism avoid behaviour break the law causal caused cent change in moral character change choose circumstances cognitive committed concept of insanity conclude crime criminal Dahmer decide delusion deserves punishment desires and beliefs deterrence Diminished Responsibility disease dissociative duress Durham Rule evidence evil character evil person exculpatory explain fact Fingarette Folk Psychology found NGRI guilty harm Hybrid theory Hyde implies inclined to excuse innocent insanity defence insanity plea intent involuntary irrational irrationality Irresistible Impulse Jekyll judge jurors jury justified killer killing lack lose control M'Naghten Rules means mens rea mental illness moral character murder Naturalistic Fallacy necrophilia normal notion offence otherwise Paradigm partial excuse personality disorder psychiatric psychiatrists Psychology psychopath psychotic rational reason Retributivism schizophrenia serotonin sexual someone standard suffering theory tion trial unable understand Utilitarianism values verdict volitional voluntary wrong