Criminal Culpability and Self-Control: Back to M'Naughton

Abstract

The quandary regarding self-control and criminal culpability has been an intriguing challenge for centuries. Some scholars argue that the capacity to think rationally should be the sole criterion for criminal culpability, while self-control plays a negligible role. As an illustration to this view, Morse argues that lack of rationality has been the legal basis for Daniel M'Naughton's exculpation in 1843, one of the most important trials in the history of mental health law. As opposed to Morse's view, it is suggested that the question of free agency and self-control was an integral part of the legal discussion regarding M'Naughton's culpability. In fact, M'Naughton's defense approach goes hand in hand with contemporary philosophical and psychological theories concerning mental dysfunction and blame attribution. Thus, acknowledgment of the diverse approaches to the relevance of self-control to criminal culpability offers a more balanced and accurate perspective.

To what extent should expert psychiatric witnesses comment on criminal culpability?

“…It derives from the case of M’Naghten and applies if a defendant is labouring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong. 53 Although the exact reason for a lack of culpability in M’Naghten insanity is debated, 54 it appears to be related to a lack of moral knowledge which reduces culpability completely.…”

When do caregivers ignore the veil of ignorance? An empirical study on medical triage decision–making

“…Why should the terrorist-triage dilemma seem to be more contentious than other triage situations? Blame attribution theory may provide an answer, at least partially (Heider 1958 ; Kelley 1967 ; Kelley and Michela 1980 ; Alicke 2000 ; Nadelhoffer 2006 ; Gold 2011 ).…”