Diminished Responsibility Article Index for
Diminished 		Articles about
Diminished Responsibility 		Website Links For
Responsibility 		 

Information About

Diminished Responsibility
  CATEGORIES ABOUT DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY
   
criminal defenses
   
mental health law
   
APPAREL
BABY
BEAUTY
BOOKS
CAR TOYS
CELL PHONES
DVD'S
ELECTRONICS
GOURMET FOOD
GROCERIES
HEALTH & PERSONAL
HOME & GARDEN
JEWELRY
MUSIC
MUSIC INSTRUMENTS
OFFICE PRODUCTS
SOFTWARE
SPORTING GOODS
TOOLS & HARDWARE
TOYS
VIDEO GAMES
SHOPPING HOME
MORE SHOPPING...



In Criminal Law , diminished responsibility (or '''diminished capacity''') is a potential Defense by Excuse by which Defendant s argue that although they broke the Law , they should not be held Criminally Liable for doing so, as their mental functions were "diminished" or impaired. The defence's acceptance in American jurisdictions vary considerably. The majority of states have adopted it by statute or case decision, and a minority even recognise broader defences such as 'irresistible impulse.' Some American states restrict the defence to the charge of murder only where a successful defence will result in a manslaughter conviction instead of murder. Until recently, the Republic of Ireland did not accept the partial defence. The Irish Supreme Court had rejected the existence of the defence in ''The People (DPP) v Joseph O' Mahony'' {Link without Title} ILRM 244. The case was recently abrogated, however, by enactment of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006, effective 1 June 2006 . The act, in pertinent part, specifically adopted the partial defence for the charge of murder where a successful defence will result in a manslaughter conviction instead of murder.


DISCUSSION

This is an aspect of a more general Insanity Defense (see the M'Naghten Rules ). Peter Arenella, in the '' Columbia Law Review '' ( 1977 p.830), stated, "the defense diminished responsibility ...was first recognized by Scottish Common Law to reduce the Punishment of the '''partially insane'''." It developed from the practice of juries in the 19th century of returning verdicts of guilty with a recommendation as to mercy or mitigation of sentence to reflect any extenuating circumstances. In a series of decisions, given mainly by Lord Deas, a doctrine grew that various types of mental weakness could have the effect of reducing what would otherwise be a conviction for Murder (which attracted Capital Punishment ) to one for culpable homicide (where the courts had greater discretion in sentencing). An example of a "diminished capacity" might be extremely low Intelligence . In the English case of ''R v Raven'' (1982) Crim. LR 51 a man who had a physical age of 22 years but a mental age of only 9 years was provoked by homosexual attacks and killed the attacker. His mental deficiency was not in dispute and, since a child of 9 years would not have been criminally responsible (see s50 Children and Young Persons Act 1933), and his mental responsibility for his acts was substantially impaired, manslaughter was the only realistic verdict. The rationale of the defense is that, as a precondition to Punishment , the criminal law requires conduct to be voluntary. If something interferes with the capacity of the individual to choose to break the law, this should be reflected by an excuse or exculpation. The law should balance the need to be fair to the individual wrongdoer, but equally offer some protection to Society from a person who may not have complete control over their behavior.

The effect of the defense varies between the Jurisdiction s. In some, it will result in full excuse and therefore produce a verdict of " Not Guilty ". In others, it offers only exculpation to a degree, resulting in the substitution of a lesser offence (e.g., Manslaughter instead of murder) or a mitigated Sentence .