1 / 6

Diminished Responsibility

Diminished Responsibility . Crystal and Meg . Diminished Responsibility . Also known as substantial impairment of responsibility, this defense is used when the accused is suffering from a mental impairment that caused them to commit the crime Partial defense Reduces murder to manslaughter .

jeneva
Télécharger la présentation

Diminished Responsibility

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Diminished Responsibility Crystal and Meg

  2. Diminished Responsibility • Also known as substantial impairment of responsibility, this defense is used when the accused is suffering from a mental impairment that caused them to commit the crime • Partial defense • Reduces murder to manslaughter

  3. Crimes Act 23A 1900 (NSW) • The statutory provisions governing the defence of diminished responsibility in New South Wales are contained in s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). That section defines diminished responsibility in the following terms: • (1) Where, on the trial of a person for murder, it appears that at the time of the acts or omissions causing the death charged the person was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for the acts or omissions, he shall not be convicted of murder. • (2) It shall be upon the person accused to prove that he is by virtue of subsection (1) not liable to be convicted of murder. • (3) A person who, but for subsection (1) would be liable, whether as principal or as accessory, to be convicted of murder shall be liable instead to be convicted of manslaughter. • (4) The fact that a person is by virtue of subsection (1) not liable to be convicted of murder in respect of a death charged shall not affect the question whether any other person is liable to be convicted of murder in respect of that death. • (5) Where, on the trial of a person for murder, the person contends: • (a) that he is entitled to be acquitted on the ground that he was mentally ill at the time of the acts or omissions causing the death charged; or • (b) that he is by virtue of subsection (1) not liable to be convicted of murder,

  4. Defendant must be able to prove that they suffer from a mental abnormality that caused them to act in a certain manner and carry out a crime • Abnormality of the mind- a state of mind so different from that of an ordinary human beings that a reasonable person would term it abnormal • Examples: • Low IQ • Mental retardation

  5. Easier to prove than the insanity plea as the person may be completely normal in every other aspect of their mental capacity and health • Abnormality of the mind includes long term deleterious effects of the consumption of alcohol and presumably of drugs • Cannot be used as an excuse when accused is either: • Drunk • Under the influence of mind-altering drugs

  6. Three elements of diminished responsibility that must be proven: • that at the time of the killing, the accused was suffering from an abnormality of mind; • that the abnormality of mind arose from one of the causes listed within the parentheses in s 23A(1), that is from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind, or from any inherent cause, or induced by disease or injury; and • that the abnormality of mind substantially impaired the accused’s mental responsibility for the killing. • It is the accused who bears the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that these three elements have been established.7 If the defence is proven, the accused is convicted of manslaughter, for which the statutory maximum sentence is penal servitude for 25 years, in contrast with the maximum penalty of penal servitude for life which is available for murder.

More Related