Your search for: insanity OR insane OR crazy

Lawrie Reznek addresses these questions and more in his controversial investigation of the insanity defense in Evil or Ill ? Drawing from countless intriguing case examples, he aims to understand the concept of an excuse, and explains why the law excuses certain actions and not others. In his ...

Lawrie Reznek addresses these questions and more in his controversial investigation of the insanity defense in Evil or Ill ? Drawing from countless intriguing case examples, he aims to understand the concept of an excuse, and explains why the law excuses certain actions and not others. In his easily accessible and elegant style, he explains that in law, there exists two excuses derived from Aristotle: the excuses of ignorance and compulsion. Reznek, however proposes a third excuse - the excuse of character change. In introducing this third excuse, Reznek raises a controversial possibility - the abolition of the insanity defence.

Throughout the Western world, the emergence of insane asylums during the nineteenth century marked a significant change in the public perception as well as the medical treatment of mental illness. Mad Yankees tells the story of one of the earliest such institutions in the United States, the Hartford ...

Throughout the Western world, the emergence of insane asylums during the nineteenth century marked a significant change in the public perception as well as the medical treatment of mental illness. Mad Yankees tells the story of one of the earliest such institutions in the United States, the Hartford Retreat for the Insane. Opened in 1824, it was the first hospital of any kind in Connecticut and the only private mental asylum in the nation founded by a state medical society. Although conceived as an elite institution, for many years the Hartford Retreat cared for the indigent insane and paying clients alike.

A number of remarkable physicians associated with the Retreat shaped early psychiatry in Connecticut and placed the state in the vanguard of treatment for the mentally ill. Dr. Eli Todd's ethic of a "law of kindness" toward the afflicted and claims of extraordinary cure rates gained the hospital an international reputation. A coterie of doctors associated with Todd -- including Mason Cogswell, Samuel B. Woodward, Amariah Brigham, and John Butler -- became prominent advocates of "moral" treatment that led to caring for the insane with respect and dignity.

Yet as Lawrence B. Goodheart explains, care of the mentally ill in nineteenth-century Connecticut was not without its ironies. The faith of the Retreat's founding generation in the restorative ability of the asylum gradually waned, as the burden of providing extended custodial care to the chronically ill produced outcomes that were not originally anticipated. During the Gilded Age, the contrast between the state-funded Connecticut Hospital for the Insane, which opened in 1868 in Middletown, and the elegant Hartford Retreat madeclear the class and associated moral differences between public and private care. Less was heard about "the law of kindness" and moral treatment of patients and more about moral unfitness and the benefits of eugenics. As the

No area of criminal law has been the subject of more controversy than the insanity defense. The Insanity Defense is a clear assessment of this issue as it exists in the 1980s. It provides the reader with a basis for understanding and evaluating the legislative and judicial responses to the factors ...

No area of criminal law has been the subject of more controversy than the insanity defense. The Insanity Defense is a clear assessment of this issue as it exists in the 1980s. It provides the reader with a basis for understanding and evaluating the legislative and judicial responses to the factors that have stirred this controversy. Simon and Aaronson begin with a detailed historical overview. They discuss the necessity of expert witnesses in the actual trial and probe into the jury's role and responsibility. They describe the various movements that have been used to abolish the insanity defense, as well as assess the use and interpretation of the defense in other nations.