Arthur Barnes said:When it comes to measures like this, I truly don't see why people who are incompetent should be exempt from such treatment.
To explain this simply, it contradicts all fundamental principles of criminal law. I will attempt to summarize it concisely, though it is not a simple task. 🙂
In short, for an act to constitute a crime under the US Penal Code, four specific conditions must be met:
1. ACT – For a crime to exist, there must first be an act, defined as a voluntary human action. Therefore, any effects caused by natural forces or animals are excluded from this concept. Human activities or states of being are also excluded; mere thoughts, beliefs, character, or lifestyle do not qualify. Physical movements that occur outside of a person's control are not considered acts.
2. An act that matches the legal description fulfills the ESSENCE OF THE CRIME. This term refers to the total set of characteristics that define a specific offense. The essence contains everything typical of a particular crime.
3. For behavior to be considered a crime, it is not enough to merely fulfill the essence of the crime; the act must also be UNLAWFUL.
4. Unlawfulness alone is insufficient for a crime to exist; one must also establish
guilt principle Guilt is our most critical factor. Consider this:
guilt = the subjective relationship of the perpetrator to their act, which allows for the issuance of
blame.
The guilt principle = NULLA POENA SINE CULPA (no punishment without guilt).
Under Section 4 of the US Model Penal Code: "No one can be punished, nor can other criminal sanctions be applied to them, unless they are guilty of the committed act."
The guilt principle combined with the principle of legality forms the foundation of modern criminal law.
THE NORMATIVE UNDERSTANDING OF GUILT IN MODERN US LAW:
Section 39 of the US Penal Code states: "A person is guilty of an offense if, at the time
of the act, they were ubrojiv, acting with
INTENT or NEGLIGENCE when the law prescribes
punishment for that specific form of guilt, and they were AWARE
or were DUTY-BOUND and ABLE TO BE AWARE that their
act was PROHIBITED."
Three elements of guilt must be satisfied:
1. UBROJIVOST
2. INTENT or NEGLIGENCE
3. AWARENESS OF UNLAWFULNESS or THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH AWARENESS
In this context, ubrojivost is our primary concern.
Section 40 – An individual is
neubrojiv if, during the commission of the legal elements of a crime, they were unable to understand the meaning of their actions or could not control their own will due to mental illness, temporary mental impairment, insufficient mental development, or another severe mental disorder.
The legal consequence of being neubrojiv is that no criminal sanction can be applied to the perpetrator.
However, criminal proceedings are still initiated against a neubrojiv person, as neubrojivness can only be established through a judicial ruling. Following the verdict, if the individual poses a direct threat to their own life or the safety of others, provisions regarding involuntary commitment to a psychiatric facility will be applied.To summarize: A person who is neubrojiv lacks guilt; without guilt, there is no guilt, and therefore, no crime.