NCJ Number
110708
Journal
Journal of Law and Health Volume: 1 Issue: 2 Dated: (1986-87) Pages: 113-140
Date Published
1987
Length
28 pages
Annotation
Professor Norval Morris argues for the abolition of a special insanity defense to a criminal charge and the application of traditional common law principles of mens rea, intent, recklessness, and knowledge to all criminal cases; Professor Richard Bonnie argues for the retention of the insanity defense to maintain the criminal punishment only of persons who act with criminal intent, a goal that cannot be properly achieved without the special insanity defense.
Abstract
Both debaters agree that the insanity defense does not encompass all offenders who are mentally ill and that current procedures for dealing with persons acquitted by reason of insanity and convicted mentally ill offenders are inadequate. They disagree, however, on the sufficiency of traditional mens rea principles for determining criminal culpability under conditions of mental illness. Bonnie does not believe that mens rea principles sufficiently distinguish criminal from noncriminal actions under conditions of mental illness. Norris believes mental illness is as irrelevant to determining criminal responsibility as are other biological and social factors that may determine a person's behavior. This article not only presents the stated positions of the debaters but also their questions and answers to one another. 8 footnotes.