Appelbaum Paul S
Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, 1051 Riverside Drive, 122, New York, NY 10032, USA.
Psychiatr Serv. 2006 Oct;57(10):1370-2. doi: 10.1176/ps.2006.57.10.1370.
This column describes a recent Supreme Court case, Clark v. Arizona, in which an adolescent who had schizophrenia was convicted of first-degree murder of a police officer who he believed was a hostile space alien. The Arizona courts had rejected his insanity defense as well as a second defense that he lacked the required intent to commit the crime (mens rea) because his delusions interfered with his knowing that the victim was a police officer. The Court ultimately declined to overturn Arizona's rules regarding the insanity defense and mens rea. However, the column highlights the points in Justice Souter's decision that may have implications for any case involving mental health issues.
本专栏介绍了最高法院近期的一起案件,即克拉克诉亚利桑那州案。在该案件中,一名患有精神分裂症的青少年被判一级谋杀一名警察罪名成立,而他认为该警察是一个怀有敌意的外星生物。亚利桑那州的法院驳回了他的精神错乱辩护以及第二项辩护,即他缺乏实施犯罪所需的意图(犯罪意图),因为他的妄想使他无法认识到受害者是一名警察。最高法院最终拒绝推翻亚利桑那州关于精神错乱辩护和犯罪意图的规定。然而,本专栏着重介绍了苏特法官判决中的要点,这些要点可能会对任何涉及心理健康问题的案件产生影响。