Anglo-American Insanity Defence Reform: The War Between Law and Medicine
Faye Boland
Abstract
Faye Boland
Abstract
This work sets out to show that all attempts at reformulating insanity have been surrounded by controversy. This is because of the insanity defence's foundation on a rigid distinction between responsibility (sanity) and irresponsibility (insanity) - a distinction at odds with psychiatric theory. The author examines the diminished responsibility defence and its success in abating the medico-legal controversy surrounding the insanity defence. This is achieved by adopting a multi-jurisdictional approach (American, Irish and English developments are examined) and by exploring legal, medical and socio-legal historical writings on this subject.
OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
This work sets out to show that all attempts at reformulating insanity have been surrounded by controversy. This is because of the insanity defence's foundation on a rigid distinction between responsibility (sanity) and irresponsibility (insanity) - a distinction at odds with psychiatric theory. The author examines the diminished responsibility defence and its success in abating the medico-legal controversy surrounding the insanity defence. This is achieved by adopting a multi-jurisdictional approach (American, Irish and English developments are examined) and by exploring legal, medical and socio-legal historical writings on this subject.
Key concepts: Sanity, Insanity, Insanity defense, Law, Subject (documents), Political science, Criminal responsibility, Criminology