Criminology

In criminal law, a person charged or accused of committing a crime is called the criminal defendant. During the criminal case, various circumstances relating to the crime charged can be raised by the defendant as a defense in order to negate some or the entire elements of the crime of which he or she is charged. The criminal defenses that can be raised may either be one or more of the following intoxication, mistake of fact, legal duty, self defense, duress, insanity, and other mental illnesses. Although there are few cases that the burden of proving the presence of these defenses is placed on the defendant, the general rule is that the government is the one that must prove that these defenses are absent in the particular crime charged. If the existence of at least one of these defenses is proven, it may provide total or partial protection to the accused from punishment.

Self-Defense as a Criminal Defense
    Self-defense is one of the most popular criminal defenses in many jurisdictions. Self-defense is basically the employment of some justifiable action to protect oneself. This type of defense, if appreciated by the court, will result in the acquittal of the defendant thus, no punishment will be imposed against the latter. Self-defense is different from insanity defense in view of the fact that the former does not require severe mental illness on the part of the defendant to be acquitted. Self-defense is enough when the reaction of any reasonable man in the questioned circumstances would be the same as that of the defendant invoking the self-defense.

The Case of Bernhard Goetz
    Bernhard Goetz boarded a subway train in the Bronx along with a group of four young African-American men. One of the members of the group, holding a sharpened screwdriver, approached Goetz and demanded 5 from the latter. Because Geotz had previously experienced being assaulted and injured, he was very defensive that he pulled out his .38 caliber pistol and fired shots against the four young men resulting in serious injury to one of them (New York State Unified Court System, n.d.). Goetz was charged with attempted illegal gun possession, assaults, and attempted murder. Goetz, however, claimed self-defense, which the grand jury accepted, thus only convicted him for gun possession. The Court based its decision on the defendants background and the fact that any reasonable person in the similar circumstance would feel equally imperiled as the defendant.

Duress as a Criminal Defense
    Another widely accepted criminal defense by many jurisdictions today is the defense of duress. This defense can be raised in a criminal case if the circumstances of the crime charged involve a very serious threat of severe injury or death to the accused or to the latters family. The defense of duress, however, is rarely raised in a criminal trial, yet when raised and proven, it can justify or excuse the criminal acts of the defendant. The duress that forced the defendant to commit certain criminal acts does not necessarily result in the impairment of his or her mind to the point that he or she could not anymore differentiate right from wrong. It is sufficient that the gravity of the threat is enough to defeat the ordinary and standard firmness of will and mind of any person of the same sex and age as that of the defendant.

The Case of Abdul-Hussain
    The defendants were Shia Muslims living in Sudan, but due to certain circumstances, they were forcibly deported back to Iraq (Six Form Law, 2008). The defendants do not want to return to Iraq because they feared that their lives will be gravely put in danger if they stay in aforesaid country. Accordingly, they hijacked a plane using hand grenade imitations and plastic knives, and compelled the pilot to fly the plane to Britain where they, upon arrival, eventually surrendered.

    In view of that, Abdul-Hussain, together with his co-accused, was charged for their criminal actions. After carefully examining the case, however, the court held that an imminent peril of serious injury or death to the defendants and to their families have operated on the formers minds at the time they hijacked the plane (Six Form Law, 2008). The court eventually ruled that the defendants are excused from the liability of their crime given that they have committed the crime only because of serious fears that were induced by the grave threats they experienced. 

Insanity as a Criminal Defense
    Nowadays, the definition of insanity in criminal defense differs from every jurisdiction. However, in general, the legal perspective of these jurisdictions is that an insane person is one where at the time of the commission of the offense, he or she was not capable of appreciating the nature or the wrongfulness of his or her conduct due to severe mental defect or disease. In other words, the person cannot be held criminally liable because he or she could not differentiate right from wrong at the time he or she committed the crime.

The Case of Sharon Curry
    In 1999, Sharon Curry of Washington stabbed her 8-year old daughter Jessica to death while on her lap in the passenger seat of her car. The doctors for the defense and prosecution agreed that Curry was insane when she killed her daughter, and that her mental suffering was so severe that she could not anymore differentiate wrong from right (Criminal Defense Lawyer, 2003). Accordingly, under the Washington law Curry was considered not guilty of the crime, but was all the same sent to the Eastern State Hospital so that she would be provided with appropriate medical and psychiatric treatments.

    Recently, however, Spokane County Superior Court Judge Richard Schroeder is scheduling Currys release from the hospital. In view of this, several people, including Currys relatives requested Schroeder to keep her confined. Nevertheless, Schroeder cannot entertain such request because according to the psychiatrists who monitored Curry, the specific psychosis that initiated her criminal behavior has already cleared up. In accordance with the Washington law, the judge has no choice but to release Curry, although the law cannot guarantee that the psychotic disorder of Curry will never again arise (Criminal Defense Lawyer, 2003).

    In the defense of insanity, the courts basically consider the defense in its legal concept and not in its medical concept of mental illness. From the perspective of the law, the diagnosis of mental disorder of one person is not sufficient to relieve the latter from the responsibility for the criminal actions he or she has committed. The law must carefully examine if the mental illness of the defendant is severe enough as to result in his or her failure to appreciate the nature or the wrongfulness of his or her conduct. Otherwise, the defendant will be held criminally liable, even though under the medical perspective, he or she is insane or has mental illness.

    In criminal cases, the defendant can raise a defense that will justify or excuse his or her criminal behavior. However, in order for the court to uphold the criminal defense, such as self-defense, duress, and insanity, the state of mind of the defendant at the time of the commission of the crime must first be carefully examined. Determination of the defendants sanity is very important since every criminal defense requires different levels of state of mind. In duress, it is sufficient that the gravity of the threat is capable of defeating the ordinary and standard firmness of will and mind of a person of the same sex and age as that of the defendant. In self-defense, it is enough when the reaction of any reasonable man in a certain situation would be the same as that of the defendant invoking self-defense. However, in insanity, it is important that at the time of the commission of the offense, the defendant was entirely not capable of appreciating the nature or the wrongfulness of his or her conduct due to severe mental defect or disease.