NCJ Number
104903
Journal
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry Volume: 8 Issue: 3 Dated: (1986) Pages: 343-357
Date Published
1986
Length
15 pages
Annotation
This article discusses whether the current tests for criminal responsibility fairly apply to mentally retarded defendants and whether confinement policies for mentally retarded defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are fair to those defendants.
Abstract
It is argued that the philosophy of normalization of the handicapped and the law's goal of treating similar cases alike provide grounds for rejecting a need for separate tests for mentally retarded and mentally ill defendants. According to the principle of normalization, retarded people can and must take responsibility for their actions and face the consequences for violation of the law to the same extent that nonretarded persons do. Shielding them from deserved punishment solely on the basis of their retardation devalues them and fails to treat them equally. While some commentators have argued that the doctrine of diminished responsibility may be more appropriate to retarded defendants, others have noted that the doctrine usually results only in a reduced sentence and not commitment for treatment and thus, punishes mentally retarded persons. While the law should continue to apply the same test of responsibility to both the mentally ill and the retarded, there are differences between the two groups that require differences in policy in such matters as habilitative services. 86 footnotes.