PrimeSuspect
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2014
- Messages
- 10,594
- Reaction score
- 19,721
Its not at all what britskate said. Not knowing bw right n wrong is legal insanity. That's not the issue and no one thinks that.o
There appears to be two definitions of insanity.
The Insanity Defense comes in two main forms. First, a defendant may argue that because of mental disease or defect, he or she lacked the capacity to distinguish right from wrong. This is cognitive insanity.
Second, a defendant may argue that because of mental disease or defect, she or he was unable to act in conformance with the law. This is volitional insanity, and it is known as the irresistible impulse defense. Under this defense, a defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity even though she or he was capable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the offense.
http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Irresistible+Impulse
INSANITY AND DIMINISHED CAPACITY
BEFORE THE COURT
1. The legal test for insanity in South Africa has a biological component
(ie the presence of mental illness) and a psychological component (the
impairment of cognitive and/or conative functioning).
2. The diagnosis of mental illness falls within the domain of psychiatrists
and psychologists while the assessment of criminal responsibility falls
within the domain of the court.
3. In the defence of automatism the voluntariness of the act is in question.
The person cannot be held criminally liable because the act is
committed while he or she is an altered state of consciousness and is
unable to perform goal-directed actions.
4. The defence of non-pathological incapacity allows for temporary
emotional states to be used as grounds for exculpation.
This paper covers what Dr Vorster stated, pretty much word for word. No wonder the PT jumped in and ordered a psych assessment on OP, play that card now or remove it permanently from the table.
http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/psychology/psy400w/insanity.pdfA person who commits an act or makes an omission which constitutes an offence and
who at the time of such commission suffers from a mental illness or mental defect
which makes him or her incapable
(a) of appreciating the wrongfulness of his or her act or omission; or
(b) of acting in accordance with an appreciation of the wrongfulness of his or her act
or omission, shall not be criminally responsible for such act or omission.
Section 5 of the Criminal Matters Amendment Act 68 of 1998