Maggie M.

Case 1
Questions:
1. The psychiatrists understand how PTSD can affect the brain and how it could alter
someone's decision making process and judgement. They used the defence Borsch was
not criminally responsible due to his mental disorder.
2. The court’s reasons for finding Borsch NCR were that he was incapable of appreciating
the nature of the act and he was incapable of understanding what he had done
3. I would recommend Borsch to go into a psychiatric facility so he is no longer a threat to
society and to effectively treat his PTSD.

Case 2
Questions:
1. If the jury had ruled he was too drunk to perform the specific intent, Daley would have
received a manslaughter charge instead. This is logical in the eyes of the law because it
lowers the specific intent to kill down to general intent to harm.
2. The main question the jury had to face was whether or not Daley was intoxicated
enough to realize that his actions would kill his common-law wife.
3. The expert witness for the defence was not very effective because he failed to make the
link between loss of consequences of one’s actions.

Case 4
Questions:

1. The court felt that they needed to distinguish between insane and non-insane
automatism because it would determine whether or not he was a threat to society and if
he was likely to hurt more people.
2. The two interpretations for determining insanity are “the continuing danger theory” and
“the internal cause theory”. The difference between the two is that “the continuing
danger theory” would be a condition likely to pose a recurring danger to the public. “The
internal cause theory” is a condition stemming from the psychological or emotional
makeup of the accused, not an external factor.
3. The reasons the court acquitted Parks would be he was asleep and truly did not
understand or realize what he was doing. He had no conscious effort or control over his
actions. His relationship with his in-laws was great and he would not have had a motive
to harm them in any way. His medical history and the many stress factors recently in his
life can prove he was in fact asleep. I agree with the decision to acquit Parks due to the
fact he was unconscious and is not a threat to society.
4. The law should not permit the use of defence of automatism for those who voluntarily
consume drugs or alcohol. This is justifiable because when an individual chooses to
consume drugs or alcohol, they are aware of the effects. It is fully the individual’s
responsibility to monitor personal consumption knowing that their judgement will be
impaired.
Case 5
1. Insanity relates to the concept of mens rea because the mind cannot be guilty if the mind
does not understand or appreciate their actions and the consequences.
2. The Supreme Court said “irresistible impulse” was not a defence though evidence of an
impulse overpowering the ability to resist doing an act may be a symptom of a disease of
the mind and allow a defence of insanity. He was not legally insane though his actions
were insane.
3. Irresistible impulse was defined as the defendant arguing that they should not be held
criminally liable for their actions that broke the law, because they could not control those
actions. Abbey thought his applied in his case because a “supernatural force” was telling
him he had to do it. If there is a case where a kidnapper is threatening a child’s life and
the parents break the law because the kidnapper told them to to save their child, they
could use the irresistible impulse.

Case 6
1. Mistake of facts is when someone is mistaken by facts they were not understanding/
were wrong and could not perform the mens rea since they didn’t know what it was.
Mistake of law on the other hand is believing how the law applies to their actions.
Campbell was aware of the facts but misunderstood the judge’s statement for the law.
2. Some may see this as “officially induced error” because an official, in this case the judge,
said something to be believed by some as the law although it was just a statement from
that particular judge. He was not trying to make his statement “legal advice” though
some could see it that way.
3. I think the result of the case was fair because Ms. Campbell had all the facts but mistook
a judge’s statement as a law that would be applied to her particular situation.