Chapter 7 - Culpability and criminal capacity Flashcards
What is criminal capacity?
The term criminal capacity refers to the mental abilities or capacities that a person must have in order to act with culpability and to incur liability. A person is endowed with criminal capacity if he has the mental ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his act or omission or act in accordance with such an appreciation of the wrongfulness of his act or omission. If one (or both) of these abilities is lacking, the person concerned lacks criminal capacity and cannot be held criminally responsible for an unlawful act he committed while he lacked such ability.
What are the 2 psychological legs of the test for criminal capacity?
- Cognitive: the ability to differentiate (insight)
- Conative: the power of self-control (Conative)
What are the defences that exclude criminal capacity?
- Mental illness
- Youth
- Non-pathological incapacity
Explain culpability
Culpability, as an element of criminal liability, means that there are grounds upon which, in the eyes of the law, the perpetrator can be reproached or blamed for his conduct
What does culpability consist of?
It consists of criminal capacity plus either intention or negligence.
Explain the relationship between culpability and the unlawful act.
The must both exist at the same time (contemporaneous)
What was the stance on the defence of non-pathological criminal incapacity before 2002?
it was generally accepted that there is a generally accepted that there is a general defense of criminal capacity apart from the defense of mental illness set out in Section 78(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the defense of youth.
What was the defence called and explain what it entails.
The general defense of criminal liability referred to was also known as non-pathological criminal incapacity resulting from provocation or stress, on the one hand, and the defense of sane automatism, on the other.
What was the ruling on the Eadie case by the SCA in 2002
The SCA held that there is no difference between the defense of non-pathological criminal incapacity resulting from provocation or emotional stress, on the one hand, and the defense of sane automatism, on the other. The court also submitted that, until such time as there is more clarity in our case law on the question of whether the defense of non-pathological criminal incapacity still exists, the judgment in Eadie should be limited to cases in which X alleges that his incapacity was caused by provocation or emotional stress. if he alleges that he momentarily lacked capacity owing to other factors, such as intoxication, the defense of non-pathological criminal incapacity still exists. Its is submitted that if, as in the Eadie case, X alleges that he lacked capacity as a result of provocation or emotional stress, he can escape liability only if he successfully raises the defense of sane automatism.
What is the difference between culpability and intention?
An investigation into X’s intention comprises an investigation into his knowledge. Criminal capacity has nothing to do with X’s knowledge, it concerns his mental abilities.
