The Two Faces of Insanity

Simple item page
dc.creatorLoewy, Arnold H.
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-24T14:52:38Z
dc.date.available2022-02-24T14:52:38Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.description.abstractArgues that insanity should rarely exculpate and never implicate. Thus, on the one hand, when insanity is invoked as a defense by one who has been proven guilty of the requisite mens rea and actus reus for the crime, insanity should rarely, if ever, exculpate. On the other hand, when the defendant lacks the requisite mens rea to commit the crime, whether because of insanity or any other non-self-induced reason, the defendant should not be guilty.en_US
dc.identifier.citationArnold H. Loewy, The Two Faces of Insanity, 42 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 513 (2009-2010)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2346/88831
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherTexas Tech Law Reviewen_US
dc.subjectInsanity defenseen_US
dc.subjectInsane delusionsen_US
dc.subjectLacking criminal intenten_US
dc.subjectMens reaen_US
dc.subjectActus reusen_US
dc.subjectNon-self-induced reasonen_US
dc.subjectModel Penal Codeen_US
dc.subjectExculpate versus implicateen_US
dc.titleThe Two Faces of Insanityen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
25_42TexTechLRev513(2009-2010).pdf
Size:
610.75 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.57 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

Texas Tech Law Review