NCJ Number
85435
Journal
Virginia Law Review Volume: 68 Issue: 5 Dated: (May 1982) Pages: 971-1084
Date Published
1982
Length
114 pages
Annotation
This article explores the importance of assessing subjective mental states in criminal law, the role of experts in making such assessments, psychodynamic explanations of behavior, and traditional views of responsibility.
Abstract
Although the climate of opinion in criminal justice has been more conservative in the last decade, the emphasis on subjective assessment in determinations of liability has not decreased. Mental states and the capacity for self-control are important in ascribing criminal responsibility. The criminal law should be clear about the limits of responsibility and about what mental states are required for various crimes. However, many believe that (1) large numbers of persons are not responsible for their own conduct and that (2) experts can simplify the complex and difficult question of criminal responsibility. The first proposition erodes the moral fabric of society and the deterrent and educative effects of the criminal law. The second view leads to a misguided decisionmaking process that surrenders the responsibility for decisionmaking to experts, thus compromising the integrity of the criminal justice system. Because there are often no scientific explanations for the behavior of individual defendants, commonsense and compassion are the best tools for ascribing responsibility and meting out punishment. The article provides 315 footnotes.