9. Mental conditions, intoxication and mistake

D. Ormerod, Karl Laird
{"title":"9. Mental conditions, intoxication and mistake","authors":"D. Ormerod, Karl Laird","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198702313.003.0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter considers the most commonly occurring ‘mental condition defences’, focusing on the pleas of insanity, intoxication and mistake. The common law historically made a distinction between justification and excuse, at least in relation to homicide. It is said that justification relates to the rightness of the act but to excuse as to the circumstances of the individual actor. The chapter examines the relationship between mental condition defences, insanity and unfitness to be tried, and explains the Law Commission’s most recent recommendations for reforming unfitness and other mental condition defences. It explores the test of insanity, disease of the mind (insanity) versus external factor (sane automatism), insane delusions and insanity, burden of proof, function of the jury, self-induced automatism, intoxication as a denial of criminal responsibility, voluntary and involuntary intoxication, dangerous or non-dangerous drugs in basic intent crime and intoxication induced with the intention of committing crime.","PeriodicalId":379891,"journal":{"name":"Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod's Criminal Law","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod's Criminal Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198702313.003.0011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter considers the most commonly occurring ‘mental condition defences’, focusing on the pleas of insanity, intoxication and mistake. The common law historically made a distinction between justification and excuse, at least in relation to homicide. It is said that justification relates to the rightness of the act but to excuse as to the circumstances of the individual actor. The chapter examines the relationship between mental condition defences, insanity and unfitness to be tried, and explains the Law Commission’s most recent recommendations for reforming unfitness and other mental condition defences. It explores the test of insanity, disease of the mind (insanity) versus external factor (sane automatism), insane delusions and insanity, burden of proof, function of the jury, self-induced automatism, intoxication as a denial of criminal responsibility, voluntary and involuntary intoxication, dangerous or non-dangerous drugs in basic intent crime and intoxication induced with the intention of committing crime.
9. 精神状况,中毒和错误
本章考虑了最常见的“精神状态辩护”,重点是精神错乱,醉酒和错误的请求。普通法在历史上区分了正当理由和借口,至少在涉及杀人时是这样。据说,正当性与行为的正当性有关,但与行为人个人的情况有关。本章探讨了精神状况辩护、精神错乱和不适合受审之间的关系,并解释了法律委员会最近关于改革不适合和其他精神状况辩护的建议。它探讨了精神错乱的检验、精神疾病(精神错乱)与外部因素(理智的自动行为)、精神错乱的妄想和精神错乱、举证责任、陪审团的职能、自我诱发的自动行为、作为否认刑事责任的中毒、自愿和非自愿中毒、基本故意犯罪中的危险或非危险药物以及因犯罪意图而诱发的中毒。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信