疯狂与元责任:精神障碍的罪责与精神错乱辩护

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
E. W. Mitchell
{"title":"疯狂与元责任:精神障碍的罪责与精神错乱辩护","authors":"E. W. Mitchell","doi":"10.1080/09585189908402162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Common-sense notions of justice dictate that those who create the conditions of their own defence should be held more culpable. Anglo-American criminal law lends credence to such notions by denying justification or excuse to those whose incapacity such as automatism or intoxication has been self-induced. However, no such provision is made for the excusatory defence of insanity. There are a number of ways in which an insanity defendant may be the cause of his or her own incapacity, thus having a high degree of responsibility for his or her criminal responsibility or ‘meta-responsibility’. The defendant may have failed to seek psychiatric help when so advised, failed in medication-compliance, or taken proscribed drugs or medicines. This article argues that there is a hitherto unconsidered autonomous component to mental disorder in which the defendant may have acquiesced in the illness, failed to resist it, or actively propagated it, perhaps to afford sympathy and excuse. Clinical, philosophical, fo...","PeriodicalId":47524,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"1999-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Madness and meta-responsibility: The culpable causation of mental disorder and the insanity defence\",\"authors\":\"E. W. Mitchell\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09585189908402162\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Common-sense notions of justice dictate that those who create the conditions of their own defence should be held more culpable. Anglo-American criminal law lends credence to such notions by denying justification or excuse to those whose incapacity such as automatism or intoxication has been self-induced. However, no such provision is made for the excusatory defence of insanity. There are a number of ways in which an insanity defendant may be the cause of his or her own incapacity, thus having a high degree of responsibility for his or her criminal responsibility or ‘meta-responsibility’. The defendant may have failed to seek psychiatric help when so advised, failed in medication-compliance, or taken proscribed drugs or medicines. This article argues that there is a hitherto unconsidered autonomous component to mental disorder in which the defendant may have acquiesced in the illness, failed to resist it, or actively propagated it, perhaps to afford sympathy and excuse. Clinical, philosophical, fo...\",\"PeriodicalId\":47524,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09585189908402162\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09585189908402162","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

抽象的常识性正义观念规定,那些为自己的辩护创造条件的人应该受到更大的惩罚。英美刑法通过否认那些丧失行为能力的人(如自动行为或中毒)的正当理由或借口,为这种观点提供了依据。但是,对于以精神失常为借口的辩护却没有这样的规定。精神失常的被告可能是他或她自己丧失行为能力的原因,因此对他或她的刑事责任或“元责任”负有高度责任。被告可能没有在被建议时寻求精神治疗,未能遵守药物治疗,或服用违禁药物或药物。这篇文章认为,迄今为止,精神障碍有一个未被考虑的自主成分,其中被告可能默许了这种疾病,未能抵抗它,或者积极传播它,也许是为了提供同情和借口。临床的、哲学的、……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Madness and meta-responsibility: The culpable causation of mental disorder and the insanity defence
Abstract Common-sense notions of justice dictate that those who create the conditions of their own defence should be held more culpable. Anglo-American criminal law lends credence to such notions by denying justification or excuse to those whose incapacity such as automatism or intoxication has been self-induced. However, no such provision is made for the excusatory defence of insanity. There are a number of ways in which an insanity defendant may be the cause of his or her own incapacity, thus having a high degree of responsibility for his or her criminal responsibility or ‘meta-responsibility’. The defendant may have failed to seek psychiatric help when so advised, failed in medication-compliance, or taken proscribed drugs or medicines. This article argues that there is a hitherto unconsidered autonomous component to mental disorder in which the defendant may have acquiesced in the illness, failed to resist it, or actively propagated it, perhaps to afford sympathy and excuse. Clinical, philosophical, fo...
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
44
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信