This thesis focuses on the treatment of insanity in the criminal law and its implications for the concepts and mechanisms of legal accountability. In order to address this issue, I examined the historical background of the insanity defense and five specific cases that demonstrate the complications arising from insanity’s present legal condition. From this case study I drew the conclusion that, because liability to punishment requires particular internal conditions, criminal responsibility is the proper measure of legal accountability for insane persons. Ultimately, my research demonstrated that insanity occupies a unique position in both the theory of crimes and the theory of punishment and that a trial by jury is not the most appropriate way for adjudicating issues of insanity. In each of these spheres, judges consider how mental conditions relate to criminal responsibility and the role that juries play shrinks as the content of guilt shifts to criminal responsibility. For this reason, I conclude that judges are the best candidates for addressing insanity and its effect on criminal responsibility.

Analyzing the crimes of women murderers and how they fared in the criminal justice system demonstrates that though perceptions of gender evolved, resistance to sentencing women to death often persisted. The nature of homicides committed by women in Oregon set them apart from their male counterparts. Women were, and are, more likely to commit domestic homicides -- murders that involve a family member or partner. These crimes are typically not equated with crimes that warrant capital punishment. As a result, no woman has been subjected to the death penalty in the state. This thesis analyzes the twenty-five women who were convicted of homicide in Oregon between 1854 and 1950. During these years the majority faced all-male court and penal systems. As such, they were handled differently in accordance with various social, cultural, and legislative shifts relating to women's roles as citizens. Through an examination of contemporary newspaper articles, inmate case files, and other Oregon State Penitentiary records, this thesis studies three distinct periods relating to these shifts: 1854-1900, 1901-1935 and 1936-1950. The assumption that it was impossible for a woman to commit murder linked claims of insanity with criminality. The six women defendants between 1854 and 1900 were either deemed insane and transferred to the asylum or quickly released from prison to avoid potential controversy or additional expense. The twelve women convicted of homicide between 1901 and 1935 all received manslaughter convictions, an occurrence unique to this era. Following the Progressive Era, sentimental juries felt more comfortable convicting women of manslaughter. Many received indeterminate sentences of one to fifteen years and were released on parole. The initial first-degree murder charges between 1936 and 1950 signaled a new period in the treatment of women charged with homicide. After gaining the right to vote and serve on juries, women began to be viewed more equally in the eyes of the law. During these years there was a more even distribution of manslaughter, second-degree murder, and first-degree murder convictions for the seven women defendants. This is due in part to women's growing presence in the public sphere. In conclusion, the idea that women were submissive creatures that required the authority and protection of men in the courtroom began to fade by 1950. Each period of study demonstrates how the contemporary perception of women and their roles as citizens affected trial outcomes. However, even when women were charged with first-degree murder they were not sentenced to the death penalty -- likely due to the domestic nature of their crimes.

This dissertation deals with the comparative analysis of mental illness as a defence in criminal law. The mental illness / insanity defence is deemed applicable when the accused does not have mens rea or lacks criminal responsibility or is afflicted by the inability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his act and act accordingly, at the time of the commission of the offence due to a pathological disturbance of the mental faculties. A review of the law in South Africa, English Law and United States of America law was done with regard to their approach in connection with the matter. The legal systems of South Africa, English Law and the United States of America were compared and analyzed because English Law and United States of America are developed countries and I decided to compare their approach to insanity defence with reference to South Africa, which is a developing country. Similarities were drawn between South Africa and English Law and this could be attributed to the fact that South African law emanated from English law. This is an important research topic on comparative analysis of mental illness as a defence in criminal law. The law applicable today in South Africa in respect of the defence of mental illness is combined in the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, which replaced the criteria as set out in the M’Naghten rules and the irresistible impulse test. In all the three countries law that were compared the burden of proof has always been on the accused to prove his case on a balance of probabilities but in South Africa the position now is he who alleges must prove because of the legislative amendments. United States of America law allows for the forcible medication with drugs of the mentally ill defendants who are charged with crimes so that they can be fit to stand trial. This is the only country in the ones that were analyzed, which practices such a barbaric and inhuman acts. In the USA , the defendant has the burden of proving the defence of insanity by clear and convincing evidence, and the finding in not guilty by reason of insanity, English law, South African law has the same finding in insanity cases. The most common diagnosis used in support of a defence of insanity continues to be schizophrenia in South Africa and in English law system. In the English law system, the Home Secretary has the power to order defendant to be detained in a hospital on the basis of reports from at least two medical practitioners that the defendant is suffering from mental illness, if the minister is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. In South Africa, the accused will be detained in a psychiatric hospital or a prison pending the decision of a judge in chambers. The detention of those found not guilty by reason of insanity could be challenged under the Human Rights Act in English law because the legal definition of insanity is far wider than the medical concept of mental disorder. The Drs under English Law have to use the legal, not the medical understanding of the mental disorder. The placing of a burden of proof on the defendant may be challengeable under European Convention of Human Rights as contrary to the presumption of innocence that is protected under convention. Finally this is a controversial subject on mental illness but the position in South Africa has been clear for a long time, and I did not come across any deficiencies in our law. I submit that South African law position on mental illness is good.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.