Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
5 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
One positive for the laws on using insanity as a defence |
Wider range of options has stopped the injustice of epileptics + diabetics having to be sent to hospital. |
|
|
What’s wrong with the definition of insanity |
It was set by the m’naughten rules in 1843 at the time medical knowledge of mental disorders was limited. -> now we have more knowledge a new definition should be used. |
|
|
Problems with the definition of insanity |
It is a legal not medical definition. Causes two problems a) people who suffer certain disorders do not come within the definition. However
B) people who suffer physical injuries ie. diabetes (Hennessy), legally it is an internal cause for the action. |
|
|
Overlap with automatism ? |
Defence of automatism has been removed for those with diabetes and epilepsy. Defence for automatism comes with complete acquittal whereas with insanity the judge has to impose some form of order on D |
|
|
good as diabetes and epilepsy have internal causes so the restrictions ... |
Such as being supervised or having some restriction as only option of punishment is safer for the community |
