Legal and practical differences between a justification and an excuse.
1) Discuss the legal and practical differences between a justification and an excuse.
2) What is needed for an insanity plea to be approved by the courts? Give an example of a case that was approved for the insanity plea and the requisites behind that decision.
3) After Bill was arrested for robbery, his mental condition went from functioning to nonfunctioning. He no longer can help his lawyer defend him because he is no longer competent. What defense, if any, does Bill have to the charge of robbery? Will he be successful?
4) How did conducting research and going through each step of legal analysis help you to reach this conclusion? Analyze how you applied critical thinking and legal analytical skills to assist you in this regard. What new research and/or analytical tool or method did you try for the first time this week? What do you think you do well and what would you like to strengthen so that you continue to improve?
5) Collaborate with each other as the week goes on to make all aspects of this Discussion as robust as possible.
Sample Solution
Justification vs. Excuse: Both defenses negate criminal liability, but in different ways:
- Justification: This defense argues that the defendant's act, while technically illegal, was lawful under the circumstances. The act itself is not considered wrong. (e.g., self-defense, defense of others)
- Legal Effect: The act is not considered a crime, and no punishment is imposed.
- Excuse: This defense acknowledges the act was wrong but argues the defendant is not blameworthy due to diminished capacity or lack of mens rea (guilty mind). (e.g., insanity, intoxication)
Full Answer Section
-
-
- Legal Effect: The act remains a crime, but the defendant might avoid punishment due to their state of mind.
-
- Insanity Plea: This defense argues the defendant lacked the mental capacity to understand the nature and wrongfulness of their act.
- M'Naghten fatally shot the secretary to the Prime Minister, mistaking him for another man.
- He was acquitted by reason of insanity due to delusions.
- The M'Naghten Rule established the "right-wrong test" for insanity: the defendant did not know the nature and quality of the act or did not know it was wrong.
- Mental illness: A diagnosed mental disorder.
- Cognitive impairment: Inability to understand the wrongfulness of the act.
- Causal connection: The mental illness must have caused the inability to understand the act's wrongfulness.
- Bill's situation involves competence to stand trial, not a defense to the original crime. Here's what happens:
- Competency Evaluation: Bill will likely undergo a mental health evaluation to determine if he understands the charges against him and can assist in his own defense.
- Incompetent to Stand Trial: If found incompetent, the trial will be postponed until Bill's mental state is restored. He might receive treatment in a secure facility.
- Competency Restored: Once Bill regains competence, the trial can proceed.
- Research and Legal Analysis:
- Identifying Relevant Legal Issues: Recognizing the distinction between justification, excuse, and competency was crucial.
- Legal Precedent: Researching the M'Naghten Rule and insanity pleas provided a framework for understanding the legal standards.
- Applying Law to Facts: Analyzing Bill's situation through the lens of competency to stand trial helped determine his options.
- Critical Thinking: Evaluated the information about Bill's case to assess the most relevant defense strategy.
- Legal Analysis: Identified and applied legal principles regarding insanity pleas and competency to stand trial.
- Research Methods: Explored resources beyond textbooks, potentially including legal databases or case summaries.
- Strengthening Areas: Consider practicing legal writing or oral arguments to further hone communication skills.
- Sharing Insights: Discussing different legal perspectives and potential arguments related to Bill's case.
- Refining Analysis: Identifying potential weaknesses in the current analysis and exploring alternative viewpoints.