Insanity defense

Insanity ( other standard language alternative insanity, formerly attribution disability) is in criminal law a reason to exclude the legal guilt of an action.

German criminal law

German criminal law is based, in accordance with the human image of the Basic Law on the guilt and responsibility principle. Who is without fault, therefore can not be punished ( " nulla poena sine culpa "). In the German Criminal Code, the Insanity in § 19, § 20 and § 21 is controlled. The § 51 of the Penal Code, old version, which was replaced by the above three paragraphs, has been used in public and private discourse in Germany spread to designate the assumed imputation inability of a person.

Insanity is not to be equated with inability offense from the civil law, although frequently present two cases occurring at the same time.

Criminal code

Age

• If you do not yet fourteen years of age and therefore is child time of the crime in the legal sense, is to blame incapable of § 19 of the Criminal Code. This is a rebuttable legal presumption of guilt disability.

• Who is the crime occurred between fourteen and eighteen years old, is in the legal sense in accordance with § 1 paragraph 2 Juvenile Court Act ( JGG ) Young and in accordance with § 3 JGG criminally responsible if, after his moral and spiritual development is mature enough time of the offense, the wrong indeed to see and act on this insight.

• Basically, the criminal responsibility shall be assumed for adult offenders. Evidence of the guilt of disability can often be determined only with medical or psychiatric reports. If the right to inspect or control capability is not missing, but is significantly reduced, a reduced sentence may take place in accordance with § 21 of the Criminal Code.

Other reasons

In addition, acts according to § 20 of the Criminal Code without guilt, "who is incapable in the act because of a pathological mental disorder, due to a profound disturbance of consciousness or because of mental retardation or serious other mental abnormality, see the injustice of the act or to act upon this knowledge. " Unable debt can therefore be who does not recognize the Culpable of his actions at the moment of the offense or is not able to control himself. The enumerated psychological causes (so-called input criteria or features ) of a deteriorated or nonexistent control or ability to understand represent categories that are uncommon in psychology and medicine, and are basically used only in forensics.

• Under a pathological mental disorder organic brain related conditions - also caused by psychotropic substances such as alcohol ( drunken stupor ) - or psychosis understood.

• As a profound disturbance of consciousness are phenomena that represent changes in consciousness or a conditions that constitute no fault of psychopathological relevance. These include exhaustion, fatigue, drowsiness, especially parasomnias and especially emotional states of confusion, which can lead to an act is committed in affect ( for example, loss of control capability). An attempt to make such states still psychiatrically diagnosed, is to be classified as acute stress reaction. The blood alcohol concentration at the time of the offense is an important clue to the existence of a profound disturbance of consciousness. From 2.0 per mil a diminished responsibility is generally assumed in homicides from 2.2 per thousand. From 3.0 per cent one Insanity is generally assumed in homicides because of the higher inhibitions generally only from 3.3 per thousand.

• As bullshit levels of innate intelligence weakness without apparent cause indicated ( mental retardation ). Intelligence weaknesses that arise in the course of dementia, however, be assigned to the first input criterion. For a finding of mental retardation among other things, the intelligence quotient ( IQ) is turned off. Here (IQ 50-70 ), moderate mental retardation (IQ 35-49 ), severe mental retardation (IQ 20 to 34 ) and a severe intellectual disability (IQ below 20 ), a distinction between mild intellectual disability.

• Under the input criterion other serious mental abnormality (often abbreviated SASA ) covered a whole range of psychopathological diagnoses. Among personality disorders, paraphilias, impulse control disorders, alcoholism and other substance- bound dependencies and non - substance- bound dependencies are understood.

Legal consequences

The blame incompetent offender can not be punished, but mentally ill or addicted offenders who are considered incapable of contracting guilt or diminished criminal responsibility in the sense of § 20 or § 21 of the Criminal Code and which at the same time under an overall assessment of the offender and his offense a further danger is to be expected, can be accommodated in forensic according to § 63 and § 64 of the Criminal Code. These legal consequences are also applicable to young people aged 14 when JGG § 3 is in the affirmative. In these cases, the accommodation is in youth forensic psychiatry, which has not yet established in all provinces.

Civil legal damages ( § 823 BGB) must also make a debt incompetents, if he is not incapable of crime at the same time.

Actio libera in causa

A legal special issue represent cases where the offender has been added deliberately in a state of Insanity before committing the act ( for example, by bringing about a full- intoxication ), or during the intoxicating would have the later induced in schuldunfähigem state success can foresee and need. This problem is called actio libera in causa. May be whether and on what grounds the perpetrators punished, despite the lack of guilt actually time of the crime, is controversial in legal studies.

Others

In the context of criminal proceedings in the early 1960s to the competent magistrate questioned the sanity of the accused came. To answer this question, the judge held a sampling of cerebrospinal fluid, ie brain and spinal fluid, to be necessary, which would have meant a painful and non-risk- free medical procedure. When the defendant refused to consent to this procedure, the district court ordered him on the basis of a criminal procedure rule to ( § 81a ). Against the defendant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ). The Constitutional Court in 1963 precipitated the so-called Liquorentnahme decision. It is historically and constitutionally significant as the reciprocal relationship of state intervention powers and individual liberties ( here: the right to physical integrity ) demarcated and made ​​it clear that according to the principle of proportionality, the application of a constitutional per se law in individual cases may be unconstitutional.