by havanagilla » Fri Apr 28, 2006 6:10 am
legal definitions of mental states are not dependent on psychology/psychiatry at all. Automatism is the old common law term for insanity defense in criminal law. It means just what it is, for a lay person, namely, the person was not thinking...(unable to think right) and the other situation is acting on an uncontrollable urge ("couldnt' help it"). The law requires a professinoal recommendation that the accused is suffering from a mental illness and that's it. (and in theory, the court can acquit on the basis of insanity even in contradiction of a medical finding, namely, if all psychiatrists say the person is healthy the court can make a "legal" determination that the accused meets the requirements for insanity defense). recently, though, the judges and the system defer their discretion to mental health profs, not sure this is good at all.<br>--<br>Men who kill, usually get off the hook by "crimes of passion",namely, provocation defense, which reduces from murder to manslaughter. (murder one has to show intent and Lack of provocation) so the bias is still in favor of male murderers, and the law is promulgated in the basis of male psychology. ONly recently the law acknowledge female psychology is in "delayed response", delayed 'self defense" etc. Women don't get provoked as males do, so the entire "mens rea" definition should change, but it hasn't yet. <p></p><i></i>