Question 1

Defenses to acts that deserve condemnation but the defendant is not held criminally responsible due to a personal disability such as infancy or insanity are called ______.

Accepted Answer

These types of defenses are called "excuses" because they do not deny that the defendant committed a wrongful act, but rather provide an explanation or excuse for why they should not be held criminally responsible. Examples of personal disabilities that can serve as excuses include infancy, insanity, and involuntary intoxication.

Question 2

Oliver was tried for murder and presented an insanity defense. The jury found Oliver not guilty by reason of insanity on the grounds that he possessed a mental disease that prevented him from curbing his conduct. Which of the following tests for insanity did the jury apply?

Accepted Answer

The irresistible impulse test for insanity focuses on the defendant's inability to control their actions due to a mental disease, which aligns with the jury's reasoning in Oliver's case.

Question 3

A defense claim that the defendant's conduct was the result of an irresistible impulse that resulted from the defendant's socially deprived childhood is consistent with which of the following defenses?

Accepted Answer

The defense described is consistent with the "rotten social background" defense, which argues that a defendant's criminal behavior is a direct result of their deprived or abusive upbringing and environment.

Question 4

Jan was tried for murder and presented an insanity defense. The jury found Jan not guilty by reason of insanity on the grounds that her unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect. Which of the following tests for insanity did the jury apply?

Accepted Answer

The Durham product test, also known as the "product test," was a test for insanity used in some jurisdictions in the United States. It states that an accused is not criminally responsible if the unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect. This test was used in some states until it was abolished in 1972 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Question 5

Under which of the following circumstances is consent not a defense?

Accepted Answer

Consent is not a defense when the victim is unable to give informed consent due to age, mental capacity, or other factors, or when the crime is so severe that it cannot be excused by the victim's forgiveness. Options B, C, and D all involve situations where consent is a valid defense.

Question 6

Requiring the state to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt is consistent with the presumption of innocence.

Accepted Answer

Requiring the state to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt is a part of the presumption of innocence, which means that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. This standard reinforces the idea that the burden of proof is on the state to prove guilt, rather than the defendant to prove innocence.

Question 7

The validity of a self-defense claim is based on the subjective beliefs of the person employing self-defense.

Accepted Answer

The validity of a self-defense claim typically depends on whether the person's belief in the need for self-defense was reasonable under the circumstances, not solely on their subjective beliefs.

Question 8

By the 17th century, the common law recognized that a juvenile's capacity to commit a crime was based on the juvenile's actual age.

Accepted Answer

By the 17th century, common law had established an age of criminal responsibility based on the juvenile's actual age.

Question 9

If a police officer uses unnecessary and unlawful force against an individual while executing an arrest, the individual may not use self-defense and is expected to seek civil or criminal remedies instead.

Accepted Answer

An individual has the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves against an officer's unlawful use of force during an arrest. However, they may also seek civil or criminal remedies afterwards.

Question 10

A successful diminished capacity defense results in a complete acquittal of the charged offense and any lesser included offenses.

Accepted Answer

A successful diminished capacity defense may result in a reduction of the charged offense to a lesser offense, but it does not result in a complete acquittal of all charges.

Question 11

Under normal circumstances, an aggressor is entitled to claim self-defense.

Accepted Answer

Under normal circumstances, an aggressor cannot claim self-defense as they were the ones who initiated the aggression. Self-defense is only applicable to the victim who was defending themselves against the aggressor's attack.

Question 12

Under Florida's Castle Doctrine, a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and may use deadly force if necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

Accepted Answer

This is an accurate statement describing Florida's Castle Doctrine.

Question 13

The alter ego rule applies an objective test of reasonableness to an act carried out in defense of another person.

Accepted Answer

The alter ego rule suggests that a person can only defend another under circumstances where the person being defended would have the right to defend themselves, focusing on the perceived situation of the person being defended, rather than applying an objective test of reasonableness.

Question 14

Under the English rule for resistance to an unlawful arrest, an individual may resist an unlawful arrest by using reasonable force.

Accepted Answer

According to the English rule, if an arrest is unlawful, an individual may use reasonable force to resist the arrest. However, this rule is not applicable in all countries and jurisdictions. It is important to check local laws and regulations before attempting to resist an arrest.

Question 15

If a defendant is found incompetent to stand trial, this means that the defendant is also not guilty by reason of insanity.

Accepted Answer

Being found incompetent to stand trial means that the defendant is unable to participate in the legal proceedings and does not have the capacity to understand the nature of the charges against them. It is a separate issue from being found not guilty by reason of insanity, which requires a determination that the defendant's mental illness or defect affected their ability to understand the nature of their actions at the time of the offense.

Question 16

Distinguish the affirmative defenses of "justifications" and "excuses."

Accepted Answer

The answer of Distinguish the affirmative defenses of "justifications" and...

Question 17

Describe the verdict of "guilty but mentally ill" and discuss the implications of a finding that a defendant is "guilty but mentally ill."

Accepted Answer

The answer of Describe the verdict of "guilty but mentally...

Question 18

Discuss the three instances where consent is a defense to a crime. Provide an example of an instance where consent would not be a defense to a crime.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Discuss the three instances where consent is...

Question 19

List and distinguish the three categories into which juveniles are categorized under the common law.

Accepted Answer

The answer of List and distinguish the three categories into...

Question 20

List and describe the five new sociological defenses.

Accepted Answer

The answer of List and describe the five new sociological...

Quiz 6: Criminal Defenses: Justifications and Excuses