This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by FINGARETTE, H. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Disability of Mind Doctrine

Much of the controversy surrounding the insanity defense arises because the modern defense is not based on fundamental analysis and because it has developed in isolation from other modern mentaldisability defenses. Unrelated doctrines, arising out of different early cases, have become increasingly unrealistic. Confusion and frustration ensue.

The Disability of Mind (DOM) doctrine resulted from the attempt to identify the fundamental legal and moral issues in mental-disability defenses. Several moral-legal intuitions emerged that underlie the legal concept of a mental-disability excuse, whether based on mental disease, intoxication, trauma, organic damage, or some other condition. These intuitions were developed into a coherent legal doctrine intelligible, in its essentials, to juries and the public. This doctrine covers all mental-disability excuses in the law. The doctrine, key concepts, and some practical consequences that should build public confidence in the DOM defense are explained here.

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 477, No. 1, 104-113 (1985)
DOI: 10.1177/0002716285477001010


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?