Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2012;40(3):318-25.
Although mental state defenses frequently are raised in cases of infanticide, legal criteria for these defenses vary across jurisdictions. We reviewed outcomes of such cases in states using M'Naughten or model penal code (MPC) standards for insanity, and the factors considered by the courts in reaching these decisions. LexisNexis and Westlaw searches were conducted of case law, legal precedent, and law review articles related to infanticide. Google and other Internet search engines were used to identify unpublished cases. Despite the differing legal standards for insanity among states, the outcomes of infanticide cases do not appear to be dependent solely on which standard is used. The presence of psychosis was important in the successful mental state defenses. This case series suggests that states that use the stricter M'Naughten standard have not been less likely than states with an MPC standard to adjudicate women who have committed infanticide as not guilty by reason of insanity.
尽管在杀婴案件中经常提出精神状态辩护，但这些辩护的法律标准在司法管辖区之间有所不同。我们审查了在使用 McNaughten 或模范刑法典 (MPC) 标准认定精神错乱的州的此类案件的结果，以及法院在做出这些决定时考虑的因素。对与杀婴罪有关的案例法、法律先例和法律评论文章进行了 LexisNexis 和 Westlaw 检索，并使用 Google 和其他互联网搜索引擎来确定未公布的案件。尽管各州在精神错乱方面的法律标准不同，但杀婴案件的结果似乎并不完全取决于所使用的标准。精神病的存在对成功的精神状态辩护很重要。本病例系列表明，使用更严格的 McNaughten 标准的州与使用 MPC 标准的州一样，不太可能将犯有杀婴罪的妇女判定为因精神错乱而无罪。
