|
In criminal law, diminished responsibility (or diminished capacity) is a potential defense by excuse by which defendants argue that although they broke the law, they should not be held fully criminally liable for doing so, as their mental functions were "diminished" or impaired. The defense's acceptance in American jurisdictions varies considerably. The majority of states have adopted it by statute or case decision, and a minority even recognise broader defenses such as 'irresistible impulse'. Some American states restrict the defense to the charge of murder only where a successful defense will result in a manslaughter conviction instead of murder. Until recently, the Republic of Ireland did not accept the partial defense. The Irish Supreme Court had rejected the existence of the defense in ''DPP v O'Mahony''.〔''The People (DPP) v Joseph O' Mahony'' () ILRM 244〕 The case was recently abrogated, however, by enactment of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006, effective June 1, 2006. The act, in pertinent part, specifically adopted the partial defense for the charge of murder where a successful defense will result in a manslaughter conviction instead of murder. Diminished capacity is a partial defense to charges that require that the defendant act with a particular state of mind.〔See e.g., ''State v. Shank'', 322 N.C. 243, 367 S.E.2d 639 (1988) and ''State v. Gerald'', 304 N.C. 511, 284 S.E.2d 312, (1981)〕 For example, first degree murder requires that the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with premeditation, deliberation and the specific intent to kill - all three are necessary elements of the state's case.〔''State v. Shank'', 322 N.C. 243, 367 S.E.2d 639 (1988)〕 If evidence exists, sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant because of mental illness or "defect" possessed the capacity to premeditate, deliberate or form the specific intent to kill then the state cannot convict the defendant of first degree murder.〔See generally, 〕 This does not mean that the defendant is entitled to an acquittal. The defendant still might be convicted of second degree murder which only requires that the defendant act with general malice.〔Malice means that the defendant acted with one of three "man-endangering" states of mind: intent to kill, intent to inflict serious bodily injury or with a "depraved" heart. Although malice thus required a specific state of mind, courts have not considered this fact as making second degree murder a specific intent crime.〕 The defense is to be contrasted with insanity which is a complete but affirmative defense. In most jurisdictions a defendant would be acquitted on the grounds of insanity if the defendant established to the satisfaction of the jury that he suffered from such a mental disease or defect that he was unable to appreciate the consequences of his actions or did not know what he was doing was wrong.〔See e.g., ''State v. Silvers'', 323 N.C. 646, 655, 374 S.E.2d 858, 864 (1989)〕 As noted a successful insanity defense will result in acquittal although a number of jurisdictions have adopted the guilty but insane verdict. The defense of insanity and diminished capacity although clearly distinct are not inconsistent defenses and both may be at issue in the same case.〔See e.g., ''State v. Rose'', 323 N.C. 455, 373 S.E.2d 426 (1988)〕 The critical distinctions are that diminished capacity is a partial, negating defense (negates an element of the state's case) with the burden on the state to show that the defendant acted with the requisite state of mind while insanity is a complete but affirmative defense - the defendant bearing the burden of proving that he was legally insane. ==Discussion== This is an aspect of a more general insanity defense (see the M'Naghten Rules). The defense "was first recognized by Scottish common law to reduce the punishment of the The effect of the defense varies between the jurisdictions. 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. California was the first state in the U.S. to adopt the diminished capacity defense, beginning with ''People v. Wells''〔''People v. Wells'' 202 P.2d 53 (1949)〕 and ''People v. Gorshen''.〔''People v. Gorshen'' 336 P.2d 492 (1959)〕〔()〕 The doctrine would soon be abolished by ballot initiative in 1982 following the negative publicity surrounding the case of Dan White, who had killed George Moscone and Harvey Milk. While White's defense team did argue successfully for a ruling of diminished capacity, resulting in a verdict of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder, an urban legend that the defense had blamed White's actions on the ingestion of sugar and junk food (the so-called "Twinkie defense") sprang up out of inaccurate media coverage.〔(【引用サイトリンク】publisher=Snopes.com )〕 One participant in the debate over diminished capacity rulings waved a Twinkie in the air to make his point.〔 Currently, the ''California Penal Code'' states (2002), "The defense of diminished capacity is hereby abolished ... there shall be no defense of diminished capacity, diminished responsibility, or irresistible impulse..." 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「diminished responsibility」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|