1. Re-examining the Underlying Principles of the New Zealand Criminal Responsibility Amir Bastani, B.A., M.A., PhD student in Law. Email: basam118@student.otago.ac.nz

2. Outline Doctrine of Criminal Liability and Excuse Attack against the law Two Interpretations of Criminal Law: I.As If view II.Folk Psychology Conclusion

3. Criminal Responsibility> Attack> as if> Folk Psychology> Conclusion Criminal liability is the ascription of guilt for an offence to a person. The criminal law assumes that individuals are responsible agents capable of making choices and intending the results of their conducts. Even if all elements of crime are proved, defendant can avoid liability: – Justification – Excuse: Legal insanity. Current Assumption of Responsibility

4. Criminal Responsibility> Attack> as if> Folk Psychology> Conclusion The tests of insanity in New Zealand. – At the time of the crime the accused must suffered from disease of mind – As a result of the mental abnormality he could not understand the nature and quality of the behavior – Also he did not know that the behavior is morally wrong Avoiding Liability

5. Criminal law Vs. Science Criminal responsibility Scientific explanation Criminal law’s explanation X is insane X is sane Criminal Responsibility> Attack> as if> Folk Psychology> Conclusion Broad view Narrow view

6. Attack Theoretical basis of criminal law is incoherent and it is inconsistent with the nature of human behavior. Some scholars persist in arguing that the principles of criminal law must evolve to comport with a more scientifically conclusive evidence understanding of human nature. Criminal Responsibility> Attack> as if> Folk Psychology> Conclusion

7. Legal vs. Theoretical Free Will (Alexander, Staub, Hall, Packer) – Theoretical free will: Philosophical, psychiatric, biological perspectives on free will. – Legal free will: Criminal law is based on social norm, not scientific or philosophical notions. The idea of free will in relation to conduct is not, in the legal system, a statement of fact, but rather a value preference having very little to do with the metaphysics of determinism or free will... the law treats man's conduct as autonomous and willed, not because it is, but because it is desirable to proceed as if it were. (Packer) As if View

9. Criminal Responsibility> Attack> as if> Folk Psychology> Conclusion Social system is strengthened by holding people responsible and undermined by shifting liability to the many factors affecting human conduct. A government should be empowered to force individuals only for what they do and not for what they are. Law’s view on insanity: some conduct is not the product of the free exercise of conscious volition. To sum up: criminal law and science can not be reconciled. As If View...

10. Criminal Responsibility> Attack> as if> Folk Psychology> Conclusion The law’s concept of liability is based on its conception of the human being and the nature of the law: – Law is a system of rules – Humans are practical reasoning and rule-following creatures Folk psychology

12. Criminal Responsibility> Attack> as if> Folk Psychology> Conclusion Science can make profound contribution but can not dictate any normative. The criminal law is coherent and can accommodate scientific claims. Therefore, some of new claims can be brought within the ambit of current criminal law defense, albeit with reasonable changes. Folk Psychology...

13. Criminal Responsibility> Attack> as if> Folk Psychology> Conclusion As if view: law and science are incompatible. The law views on human as if they are conscious even though scientifically there is no such freedom. As if narrow view on insanity Folk psychology: the law is compatible with science. New claims based on scientific discoveries can be brought within the boarder of the criminal law. Folk psychology broad view on insanity Conclusion