Word: crimed
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1950-1959
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...specially tough maximum sentence of 35 years for presidential assassins. But the Assembly gave Guizado, once a prominent, well-to-do contractor, only ten years. Then it knocked off a third of that sentence on motion of Deputy Demetrio Martínez, who pointed out earnestly that the crime was Guizado's first offense...
...ruling echoed a majority of psychiatrists, who have long opposed the M'Naghten rule. Some argue that mental competence is not directly involved in a moral question of right and wrong. Others protest that it is always difficult and sometimes impossible to determine, months or years after a crime, whether the accused knew that it was wrong when he committed it. Over the years, the only major modification of the M'Naghten rule was the addition of the idea that a man might be driven to crime by an "irresistible impulse." But that did not satisfy psychiatrists either...
...that it gives no recognition to mental illnesses characterized by brooding and reflection ... A broader test should be adopted." The proposed test, already known as the "Durham Rule": a jury must decide 1) whether an accused was suffering from "a diseased or defective mental condition" when he committed the crime, and 2) if so, whether the crime was the "product" of such abnormality...
...would be too easy for criminals to take refuge in "mental disease." Actually, if properly administered, the Durham rule would not necessarily have such results; in many cases, the defense would have a hard time proving a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the mental illness and the crime. The Durham rule, by allowing freer psychiatric testimony, might also undermine many defense attempts based on "irresistible impulse." which in the past has been responsible for some highly questionable acquittals. Said the Circuit Court's opinion: "Juries will continue to make moral judgments . . . But in making such judgments, they will...
...been punished for "aggressive war" get a sharp rap over the knuckles. Legalist West argues that precisely the reverse is true; no law ever existed under which the leaders of one nation could punish the leaders of another for having murdered their own nationals, whereas "aggressive war as a crime was inherent in the Kellogg-Briand Pact." The Nuremberg trials were not only necessary and justified; they were an ambitious effort by "brave" men to restore an international sense of moral proportion. Author West believes stoutly that "it is only by making such efforts that we survive," but she also...