Sentences with phrase «guilty by reason»

The Connecticut statute imposed certain registration requirements upon anyone who was convicted or found not guilty by reason of a mental defect of certain offenses, which included not only violent and nonviolent sex offenses, but also other nonsexual crimes including those whose victim is a minor (i.e., kidnapping).

For example, John Hinkley, the man who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Regan, was found not guilty by reason of insanity and he spent decades in a secure mental health facility.

I know that England and Wales went from «Guilty but insane» to «Not guilty by reason of insanity» /

In some states, jurors can not be informed that if the defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity, that the defendant is not automatically released into the community.

And, many are under the mistaken notion that a defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity is released back into to the community.

The Belleville News - Democrat reported on the case of John Grinston, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity after being charged with stabbing his wife to death in 1997.

The verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity was so controversial that Queen Victoria ordered the House of Lords to review the verdict.

Craig was chief coordinator of the legal team that represented former President Clinton at his impeachment trial in Congress and one of the lawyers who helped win Hinckley a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Doctors say Amber Lynn James suffered delusions; lawyer enters not guilty by reason of insanity plea

Despite what you see on television, a verdict of «not guilty by reason of insanity» is exceedingly rare.

Given the mental state of these former inmates — people who were not found insane during their trials — patients found not guilty by reason of insanity might seem to be especially disordered, and so they can be.

Forensic hospitals, on the other hand, which hold and treat offenders found not guilty by reason of insanity, have a very high success rate in preventing disordered individuals from returning to crime.

Early Solutions Given the difficulty of successfully pleading not guilty by reason of insanity — as well as the inherent problems in mixing disordered inmates, whose disorders tend to make them vulnerable, with nondisordered inmates, who are often predators — early attempts at solving this problem have been workarounds.

To the extent that the crime can be understood as a culmination of an extremist world view, then the perpetrator would be criminally responsible; to the extent that the criminal behavior was a product of a mental illness, he might be eligible for a defense of diminished capacity or not guilty by reason of insanity.

Or if the criminally insane will ever be convicted much less executed when they are not competent and «not guilty by reason of insanity»???

Now try: «people who don't know any better» or «not guilty by reason of insanity due to indoctrination.»

Under a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, Routh would have faced up to life in a state mental hospital.

Once a judge allows someone to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, prosecutors must convince the jury the defendant was sane.

Not exact matches

Heffernan explores the neuroscience behind what psychologists call «motivated reasoning,» the processes by which people contort their thinking to avoid feeling anxious or guilty.

Were these Jews guilty of not following the Father's path for the same reason the other Jews, lead by Caiaphas, were not guilty?

Not only has it given traditional theists such as Plantinga an «opportunity for an easy victory» but, more importantly, it has allowed such theists to avoid addressing the real question that evil poses: Given the incredible amount and pervasiveness of the pain and suffering that continues to be experienced by actual individuals, is there some plausible reason not to assume «that God is guilty of nonexistence» (ER 46)?

Before we judge them (by our modern lights) guilty of «heresy,» we should at least try to understand why their reasoning seemed to them persuasive.

And one gathers that it is for this reason that Weiss holds that Whitehead's theory can not show that a person may be «guilty for something done by him years ago.»

If for any reason you're unable to watch the video right now, the gist of their statement is that a juror from the Avery trial contacted Ricciardi and Demos to say that he / she believes Steven Avery was not guilty, framed by law enforcement, and had voted to convict because of fear for his / her personal safety.

In fact, the dogs that had not eaten the treat but were scolded (for no reason) by their owners looked guiltier than those that had.

If stat crunching and customising every tiny aspect of your vehicle is the main reason you play racing games, then you'll probably want to give The Crew a miss but if you're in the market for a fun, arcade racer with a ton of racing modes all held together by a guilty pleasure storyline, then The Crew will be right up your alley.

If that wasn't enough, Victor then added more insults, again without reason, by proposing that NASA could be guilty of producing falsified scientific data!

... in the opinion of the Council, the judge... has become incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of the office of judge by reason of (a) age or infirmity, (b) having been guilty of misconduct, (c) having failed in the due execution of that office, or (d) having been placed, by his or her conduct or otherwise, in a position incompatible with the due execution of that office...

If B realises (without agreeing to such conduct being used) that A may kill or intentionally inflict serious injury, but nevertheless continues to participate with A in the venture, that will amount to a sufficient mental element for B to be guilty of murder if A, with the requisite intent, kills in the course of the venture unless: (i) A suddenly produces and uses a weapon of which B knows nothing and which is more lethal than any weapon which B contemplates that A or any other participant may be carrying; and (ii) for that reason A's act is to be regarded as fundamentally different from anything foreseen by B (per Lord Brown at 68).

In R. v. Hartman, 2015 ONCA 498 (CanLII), Ontario's Court of Appeal ordered a new trial for the accused but restricted the hearing to a determination of whether he is not criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder or that he is guilty of the crime.

In the evidence given by the Magistrates Association (MA) to the Justice Committee it was reported that some magistrates have had to refuse to accept guilty pleas from defendants when it was clear that the only reason for their plea was the risk of having to pay the charge.

Like any defendant found guilty of having committed a federal crime, Rubashkin also was constitutionally entitled to consideration of all arguments for leniency, an explanation of the reasons for the sentence he received, and review of that punishment by a higher court.

In a carefully reasoned decision, the Court of Appeals required certain safeguards before a defendant may be allowed to plead guilty by phone.

With the very narrow, newly created exception for guilty verdicts in criminal cases reached based upon racial or other kinds of impermissible prejudice rather than the facts of the case (or cases where there is an outside influence on the jury such as a bribe or someone looking up facts or law on the Internet), no one can challenge a jury verdict based upon the reasoning and conclusions actually made by the jurors, even if someone learns that the jury knowingly or accidentally didn't follow the law or was mistaken about the facts.

Guilty verdicts of juries in criminal cases, and any verdict in a civil case like a patent law case, are subject to post-trial review by the trial judge who can throw out the verdict or call for a new trial for a variety of reasons, and to appeal.