By R. D. Mackay

Mental condition defences have been used in several high-profile and controversial criminal trials in recent years. indeed, mental abnormality is increasingly an important yet complex source of defence within the criminal trial process. The author offers a detailed critical analysis of those defences within the Criminal Law where the accused relies on some form of mental abnormality as a source of defence. Topics covered include: the defences of automatism, insanity, diminished responsibility, and infanticide; self-induced incapacity; and the doctrine of fault. It also includes a chapter on unfitness to plead, which although not a defence has been included because of its important relationship to mental disorder within the criminal process. Drawing upon a wide variety of legal, psychiatric, and philosophical sources, this is a timely contribution to a controversial and complex topic.

Oxford, UK; New York: Oxford University Press, 1996p. 278p.

By Reid Griffith Fontaine

In American criminal law, if a defendant demonstrates that they lack certain psychological capabilities, they may be excused of blame and punishment for wrongdoing. However, criminal defense law often fails to consider the developmental science of individual differences in ability and functioning that may inform jurisprudential issues of rational capacity and responsibility in criminal law. This book discusses the excusing nature of a range of both traditional and nontraditional criminal law defenses and questions the structure of these defenses based on scientific findings from social and developmental psychology. This book explores how research on individual differences in the development of social perception, judgment, and decision making explain why some youths and adults develop psychological tendencies that favor criminal behavior, and considers how developmental science can guide the understanding of criminal excuses and affirmative defense law.

Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. 282p.

By Forbes Winslow.

“This treatise was one of the first attempts to outline criteria through which to determine the legitimacy of an insanity plea. This issue would be resolved later that year with the establishment of the McNaghten Rules, which this work undoubtedly influenced, and which are still applied in England today.”

London : H. Renshaw, 1843. 78p.

By Arlie Loughnan.

Mental Incapacity in Criminal Law. Whether it is a question of the age below which a child cannot be held liable for their actions, or the attribution of responsibility to defendants with mental illnesses, mental incapacity is a central concern for legal actors, policy makers, and legislators when it comes to crime and justice. Understanding mental incapacity in criminal law is notoriously difficult; it involves tracing overlapping and interlocking legal doctrines, current and past practices of evidence and proof, and also medical and social understandings of mental illness and incapacity. With its focus on the complex interaction of legal doctrines and practices relating to mental incapacity and knowledge - both expert and non-expert - of it, this book offers a fresh perspective on this topic.

Oxford (2012) 307 pages.

By Ray Madding McConnell.

“Among the most expensive functions of government is that which is concerned with the detection, arrest, trial, and punishment of criminals. The expenditures in connection with police, courts, and prisons exceed in amount the outlay for the conservation and improvement of health, the necessities and conveniences of travel and intercourse, highways, parks, and playgrounds, and about equal the costs of education/ When any one begins to philosophize about the raison d^etre of this enormously expensive arrangement for dealing with crime and criminals, he naturally asks first for its purpose —What is the object of it all? What kind of return does this investment bring in? Society has schools for the ignorant. It has accident stations, ambulance corps, dispensaries, and hospitals for the injured and diseased. It has special educational institutions for the feebleminded, the blind, the deaf, and the dumb. It has homes for the aged, the infirm, and the incapacitated. It has asylums and hospitals for the epileptic and the insane. But for the criminals, society has detectives, bureaus of criminal identification, police, judges, jailers, and executioners —houses of correction, penal colonies, jails, penitentiaries^ the gallows, and the electric chair. What is the ground for the difference in treatment that is accorded to this last class? "

New York: Scribner, 1912. 356p.