• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/10

Click to flip

10 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Garnett v. State

What kind of case?
strict liability
Garnett v. State
• Garnett was mentally ill: 20 years old, social level of a 12 year old
• He had sex with a 13 year old, she got pregnant and had a baby
• He was charged with second degree rape: 5 years in prison
• During trial it was revealed that her friends told Garnett that she was 16 (legal age to consent)
o The court rule that it did not matter what he thought
United States v. Peterson

what kind of case?
self defense
United States v. Peterson
• Out of necessity-self defense
o only if their life was in immediate danger
• there had to be a threat of deadly force in order to merit deadly force in return
• the defender had to think his life was in danger and this belief had to be objectively reasonable in light of the surrounding circumstances
People v. Goetz

what was it about?
self defense
People v. Goetz
• he shot 4 youths because he thought they were guna rob him
• he was let off in 2 lower courts because the jury was instructed to decide weather his actions were “reasonable to him”
o of course they were!
• So new york changed the penal code to include that a jury should have decided if a “reasonable person would have done it”
o Also take into account that person’s history, and situation
o This makes it more about the SITUATION, not the person
M’naugten’s Case

what was it about?
insanity
M’naugten’s Case
• Defendant wanted to assassinate prime minister but accidentally killed his assistant
• He testified that he thought he was being harassed
• He got off on “ not guilty by reason of insanity”
• The judge asked the jury this
o If he knew he was violating the law at the time of the act he was guilty
o If he was not sensible at the time, and did not know he was doing wrong he should be found innocent
• The court explained that to get off on insanity:
o At the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mine, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
• Also ruled that each case must be taken individually: it is the jury’s job to decide
The King v. Porter

what was it about?
insanity
The King v. Porter
• The judge explained the M’naugten rule
• Then went on to say
o The law is here to deter
o Also for retributive purposes
o Its prime purpose: to preserve society form the depredations of dangerous and vicious people
• It is usless, however to deter the mentally ill
• The law does not cure mental illnesses
• One can argue that people who commit crimes are “messed up”
o BUT deterrence and punishment can work on them
o That is the difference between them and the mentally ill
• So in order for the jury to decide WHO to punish, he gives 2 standards
o The the condition of the mind at the TIME of the act
o The state of the mind had to be one of disease or disturbance