Intellectual Disability Case Study: Schizophrenia

2. Does it matter that we cannot find Benjamin Creighton to arrest and prosecute him for the underlying felony?

Mens rea, actus reus, and concurrence are all elements to a crime. These elements must be present to charge a person with a crime. The guilty mind is known as the mens rea being that a person has the intent to commit the crime with the mental capacity. The “actus reus” of an

During Mr. Coker’s trial on his new charges, his defense argued that their client was temporarily insane at the time the crimes were committed. However, the jury rejected this defense and found Mr. Coker guilty on all charges. At the sentencing hearing, the Judge instructed the jury that

It is to be submitted that the proposal of the Law Commission in the 2013 Discussion Paper presents on balance the most fitted approach to non-responsibility defences, since it eradicates the current illogical distinction between ‘insanity’ and ‘automatism’. Under this proposal, the ‘M’Naghten rule’ should be abolished and replaced by a new non-responsibility defence relevant to those cases of ‘total lack of criminal capacity resulting from a recognised medical condition (provided the other criteria of the defence are met) without limiting it to mental disorders’, assuming no culpable fault. The pertinent criminal capacities in this defence are the abilities to make a rational judgment, to comprehend the wrongfulness of a conduct and to have control of one’s body. This general defence would lead to the special verdict ‘not criminally responsible by reason of a recognized medical condition’ and disposal powers may attach. Under the ‘recognised medical condition defence’ the accused would only have an evidential burden and it would be for the prosecution to disprove beyond reasonable doubt that he/she is not criminally liable by reason of a recognised medical condition. Regarding automatism, the common law defence would be abolished and the reformed defence would be

The idea of blame, defined as, “A particular kind of response (e.g. emotion), to a person, at fault, for a wrongful action,” plays a significant role in the study of crime, with respect to degrees of “fault.” In most modern societies, “criminal culpability,” or degrees of wrongdoing, makes a difference between the kinds of punishment one receives for his action(s). To be culpable for a crime, there must be a guilty act (Actus Rea), and a guilty mind (Mens Rea). Degrees of culpability often depends on the kind of mental state, (Mens Rea), one brings to the act in which he engaged. How much one is blameworthy for wrongful conduct depends in part on the state of mind in relation to the wrongful conduct. One’s mental state while engaging in wrongful conduct, which in a legal sense is determined by legislators, is characterized by the following terms: purposely, knowingly, recklessly and negligence.

2. Case Facts: On October 13, 1979, George Schnopps fatally shot his wife of 14 years. The victim and schnopps began having marital problems six months prior, when schnopps became suspicious that his wife was seeing another man. A few days prior to the incident, Schnopps threatened to make his wife suffer. On October 12, 1979 while at work asked a coworker to buy him a gun, telling the worker that he had been receiving threatening phone calls. Schnopps paid his coworker for the gun and ammunition. On the day of the incident, Schnopps told a neighbor he was going to call his wife and have her come pick up some things, and asked if them to keep the youngest child with her so he could talk to with his wife. When the wife went over Schnopps tried to convince his wife to stay with him, in response the wife made some vulgar comments which triggered Schnopps. He then shot her and then shot himself. Shortly after he called the neighbor and told her what had happened and she called the police. The defense offered evidence from friends and coworkers who noticed difference in Schnopps physical and emotional health after the victim had left him. The Commonwealth’s expert

After hearing the details of this case, I implore the judge to send my client to a mental institution. Prison is not a suitable place for Montresor to stay. He needs medical help. Sending this hapless man to jail will only worsen his current condition. Thus, Montresor is not guilty of committing first-degree

Kuntrell Jackson was also 14-years old in November 1999 when he and two other youths attempted to rob a video store and in the process shot and killed Laurie Troup (De Vogue, 2012). Jackson did not do the shooting but was an accomplice to the act; therefore, he received a sentence of life without parole (2012). As for mens reus and actus reus in Jackson’s case, Arkansas court conceded Jackson did not commit the homicidal act nor did he intend for the death of the store clerk occur; however, the State argued Jackson’s culpability rested with his reckless indifference to the value of human life (Supreme Court Rejects Mandatory Life Sentences Without Possibility of Parole for Juveniles, 2012). Lippman (2010) explains the requirement for actus reus of accomplice liability is satisfied by even a relatively small amount of material or psychological assistance to the perpetrator of the crime. Furthermore, the mens rea requirement for accomplice liability only requires intent to assist in the commission

3. Dudley and Stephen will be charged with first-degree murder. Their punishment should be 20-30 years or life in prison. The murder of Brooks was no accident because it was premeditated. Despite the malnutrition as a factor Brooks was still sane and refused to be eaten but the other two ignored this without a second thought. By convicting Dudley and Stephen it will show that the law of the country is absolute. It will also decrease the chances of someone appealing because "They were mentally ill during the time of the killing."

In the Hinckley trial, there were two contending interpretations of the cognitive requirement of insanity. Both the defense and the prosecution's interpretations hinged on Hinckley's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the crime committed, and to conform his conduct to lawful requirements (Bonnie, et al 49). The prosecutor argued that the meaning of appreciation excludes affective or emotional impairment, and only included cognitive factors. The prosecution relied on the precedence set in United States v. Brawner, that use the Model Penal Code's embracement of the M'Naghten test's prong of appreciation that Hinckley understood the moral consequences of his actions, and that mental illness did not matter (Bonnie, et al 50).

The causation of the crime is Tommy accidentally pulling the trigger while the harm is Edward’s death. Although Edward’s death was an accident, Tommy should be charged with involuntary manslaughter due to his negligent actions. Tommy should have been aware that pointing a gun at someone is extremely dangerous.

I would order Trevor Jones as a youth with manslaughter for 4 years. The gun discharging while selling it, wasn’t on purpose. It was a complete accident in my point of view and was unintentional. I would also charge him with theft under five thousand dollars since he sold the man before he died the gun then tried stealing it back. I would also sentence him to 1 year of parole to keep an eye on any activity happening within Trevor’s life. In my books, it classifies under the category of theft and I believe even though the main idea of the crime was death, the minor details still have to be examined.

For the first segment Mr. Edley should not be criminally liable for murder based on what happened to him in public. Based on the information that was given for the case, he was just trying to protect himself from that old woman. He protected himself because she had randomly came out of nowhere because she was living on the streets with a cart and decided to use it to trap Edley against a wall. He decided to use his gun, which he was legally able to have because it was registered to his name and was able to carry it with him, and protect himself because she was trying to kill him. So that is why he should not be criminally liable.

I would charged Johnny Myers because in this circumstance with Johnny being on these medications he able to managed his condition as long as he taking his medications. So with his biplor disorder under control his behavior shouldn't escolate to the point for him to assault his girlfriend. Jessie on the hand was just defending herself against the assault so she acted in self defense.

Following their interrogation and arrest, Bill and Stan attend the pre-trial procedures. Stan is being formally charged with accessory to murder in the first-degree, while Bill is charged with first-degree murder. At the arraignment, the judge begins by asking Vinny (the defense) how his clients