Diminished responsibility

Question 1

Evaluation on the new medical definition:

Answer 1

• Legal definition of abnormality of mental functioning has been replaced and now as it must be given evidence by professionals it is in line with medical definitions.
• Include a wider range of issues such as battered wife, PTSD etc.
• By asking for evidence this may reduce the scope of the defence, previously with vague definition the courts were not restricted when applying defence.
• Now people who commit mercy killings will not be granted the defence where they would have been in the past as there is no medical evidence.
• Has narrowed the defence.
• So many types of medical conditions that affect mental functioning.
• Othello syndrome succeeded even though the courts did not want it to they had no choice as it was medically recognised.

Question 2

Evaluation on substantial impairment:

Answer 2

• New act gives detailed definition of what must be impaired by the condition.
• No definition to what is substantial, vague definition which could have been clarified.
• What one jury considers substantial another may not which may lead to inconsistencies.

Question 3

Evaluation of alcoholism and intoxication:

Answer 3

• Seems to remain unchanged by the new act so previous decisions still stand.
• Those who are intoxicated at the time will always face disapproval.

Question 4

Law reform for diminished responsibility?

Answer 4

Proposed developmental maturity being included but rejected as autism and learning difficulties etc will all be covered.
Threat of child killers using the defence and getting away with reduced sentence.

Question 5

Summary:

Answer 5

Defence of DR has its criticisms and new act made some improvements mostly to medical conditions definition bu argued they missed chance to improve all elements.
If mandatory life abolished the defence would not longer be necessary and all criticisms would disappear.