The Disability of Mind Doctrine

Herbert Fingarette

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1985, vol. 477, issue 1, 104-113

Abstract: Much of the controversy surrounding the insanity defense arises because the modern defense is not based on fundamental analysis and because it has developed in isolation from other modern mentaldisability defenses. Unrelated doctrines, arising out of different early cases, have become increasingly unrealistic. Confusion and frustration ensue. The Disability of Mind (DOM) doctrine resulted from the attempt to identify the fundamental legal and moral issues in mental-disability defenses. Several moral-legal intuitions emerged that underlie the legal concept of a mental-disability excuse, whether based on mental disease, intoxication, trauma, organic damage, or some other condition. These intuitions were developed into a coherent legal doctrine intelligible, in its essentials, to juries and the public. This doctrine covers all mental-disability excuses in the law. The doctrine, key concepts, and some practical consequences that should build public confidence in the DOM defense are explained here.

Date: 1985
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716285477001010 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:anname:v:477:y:1985:i:1:p:104-113

DOI: 10.1177/0002716285477001010

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().