Reducing murder to manslaughter: whose job?

Journal of Medical Ethics 12 (1):18-23 (1986)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper compares two versions of the diminished responsibility defence, which reduces murder to manslaughter: the present statutory formulation and a proposed reformulation. The comparison confirms that evidence such as psychiatrists are commonly invited to give in murder cases takes them beyond their proper role. Paradoxically, although the two formulations mean essentially the same thing, the proposed change of wording must have the practical effect of subduing the psychiatrist's evidence. This conclusion leads to speculation about why psychiatrists are at present allowed so large a function in diminished responsibility cases and to some general observations about the role of the expert in relation to those of judge and jury.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 102,067

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-13

Downloads
41 (#561,520)

6 months
12 (#282,957)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references