Study Unit 8 Flashcards
(16 cards)
What was mental illness referred to before
Insanity
What legislation governs mental illness
In 1977 it was governed by sect 78 of criminal procedural act 51/1977
What defenses are governed by common law
Automaton Self defense Intent Negligence Causation
What was used prior to 1977 for mental illness defense
M naghten rules.. Ie eng law
What is the impt report source that was used for the defense of mental illness
Report of the commission of inquiry into mentally deranged persons
Who was the chairperson
justice rumpff
What was the report called
Rumpff report
What is the test for the determining a person’s criminal capacity of a mentally abnormal person and where is it found
The tests is found in sect 78 of 1 of the criminal procedural act
States that a person who committed an act or omits to act which constitutes an offense and at the time the person suffers frm a mental illness or mental defect and is unable to
Appreciate the wrongfulness of his act and
Act in accordance with such an appreciation
Cannot be held criminally liable or responsible for his actions or ommission ie erspn lacks criminal capacity
What is the analysis of section 78 of 1
To det if a person lacks criminal capacity
Both the pathological or biological part of the test and the psychological part of the test must be satisfied
The part b either the cognitive or conative part shld be satisfied
Causal link will exist between a and b
Test is called a mixed test
Explain the requirements for mental illness
Present at the time of the act being committed
- Mental illness is the pathological disturbance of the mind
- Court will have expert evidence from psychiatrist
- Not necessary to prove mental illness is off the mind
- Duration of illness not impt
- Intoxication is not a mental illness only chronic abuse and liquor withdrawal is.
- Mental defect differs from mental illness
Explain the 2nd leg of the test the psychological test
Must show tht lack of mental abilities is linked to mental defect or illness
Cognitive not so impt
Conative is. Req is tht x cannot or is incapable of appreciation of the wrongfulness of his act or ommission
Lack of self control gradual disintegration of personality
Kavin case they relied on Def of mental illness and not non pathological criminal incapacity
Courts used psychiatrist evidence to prove it.. He had reactive depression recognized as mental illness
Lack of self control called irrestible impulse
Who does the onus of proof lie
Sct 78 1 all persons are presumed to not suffer from a mental illness unless contrary can be proven on a balanced of probabilities
If state pleads insanity they must and if x pleads insanity x must prove
What is the verdict of these situations
If mental illness is proved successful
Court can admit x to institution and is treated as a involuntary mental health care user
Or released conditionally on courts order
Or unconditionally
More serious offences such as culpable homicide
Rape
Murder
Serious violence charge
Person can be based on public interest Admitted into psyc hospital or prison Or X reminas state patient Reclassified as a voluntary assisted or involuntary mental health care user Discharged unconditionally Discharged conditionally
Xplain diminished responsibility
If x is criminally responsible for the act but lacks the ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act due to the mental illness… Diminished responsibility taken into ac
Can hve mental illness but appreciate wrongfulness of act then not rely on defense of mental illness
If x finds it harder than others to resist the temptation as a normal person would then x is convicted of crime
But due to psychological factors less severe sentence
Can a court try a mentally abnormal person
If mentally abnormal at time of act and at time of trial court cannot try person
Xplain youth being criminally liable
Youth excludes criminal capacity based on age
Under 10 years-commits crime cannot be prosecuted and does not have criminal capacity
10 yrs and above but below 14…presumed child does not have criminal capacity unless proved otherwise
State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that child could appreciate difference between right frm wrong at time of act and acted accordingly with this appreciation
