Automatism, Insanity, and the Psychology of Criminal Responsibility

Abstract

This is a book about the role that psychological impairment should play in a theory of criminal liability. Criminal guilt in the Anglo-American legal tradition requires both that the defendant committed some proscribed act and did so with intent, knowledge, or recklessness. The second requirement corresponds to the intuitive idea that people should not be punished for something they did not do 'on purpose' or if they 'did not realize what they were doing'. Unlike many works in this area, this book addresses the automatism and insanity defences by examining the types of functional impairment that typical candidates for these defences actually suffer. What emerges is a much wider conceptual framework that allows us to understand the significance of psychological states and processes for the attribution of criminal responsibility in a manner that is logically coherent, morally defensible, and consistent with research in psychopathology.

Decision-making about volitional impairment in sexually violent predators.

“…Attempts to defi ne volitional impairment Schopp (1991) suggests that in a literal interpretation of volitional impairment, one lacks con trol over behavior if one is literally unable to direct movement (or lack of movement) through decision, while in a more fl exible interpretation there are degrees to which behavior is con trolled. While other legal theorists (e.g., Morse, 1994;Rachlin, Halpern, & Portnow, 1984)have suggested factors that may be relevant to the exercise of control, these accounts can merely offer guidance as to the types of factors that courts may consider relevant.…”

Role of the Expert Witness in Sleep-Related Violence Trials

“…Legal scholars contend that the excuse must involve a disability that the actor has that causes the excusing condition. This disability must be confirmed on the basis of observable indicators (excluding the conduct from which the actor is seeking to be excused) [10]. Unfortunately current scientific and clinical understanding often cannot satisfy the legal community's demand for concrete confirmation and observation of the excusing condition.…”

Evaluating sex offenders under sexually violent predator laws: How might mental health professionals conceptualize the notion of volitional impairment?

“…Schopp (1991) offered two interpretations of the idea behind volitional control standards. In the literal interpretation, an individual lacks control over his or her behavior if that person is literally unable to direct movement (or lack of movement) through decision (Pelayo, 1999).…”

“…In a more fl exible interpretation of volitional standards, Schopp (1991) considers that there are degrees to which behavior is controlled. Under this fl exible standard, an offender may lack control over his behavior when it would be unreasonable to expect him to perform (or not per-form) a certain act under his or her particular circumstances (Schopp, 1991).…”