Defensa por demencia en cargos de ofensa penal

Contenido principal del artículo


Efrain Mendez Morales


El presente documento trata sobre el concepto de responsabilidad, término legal que se define como la calidad de una persona para comprender las consecuencias que traerá el desempeño  voluntario de un acto ilegal, y como tal debe ser responsable, procesado legalmente y hallado legalmente responsable por el acto cometido.

El testigo médico experto en este tipo de casos juega un papel vital en la decisión final que puede llevar el juicio en el momento del veredicto.

Palabras clave:

Detalles del artículo



Todo documento incluido en la revista puede ser reproducido total o parcialmente, siempre y cuando se respete su contenido original, se cite la fuente y se use con fines académicos no comerciales. Misión Jurídica y su contenido se encuentra protegido bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivar 4.0 Internacional.

Licencia Creative Commons
Misión Jurídica por Misión Jurídica se distribuye bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivar 4.0 Internacional.
Basada en una obra en
Permisos que vayan más allá de lo cubierto por esta licencia pueden encontrarse en


1. United States v. Hinckey, 529 F. Supp. 520 (1982).

2. Comprehensive Crime Control Act, Public Law 98-473-October 12, 1984, 98 STAT. 1837.

3. Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, Pub. Law No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 2057 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C §4.01 (1) (1962).

4. Yates v. Texas, 171 SW. 3 d 215, 222 (Tex. App. 2005).

5. Necrophilia, also known as necrophilism is a sexual attraction or sexual act involving corpses. Webster’s Intermediate Dictionary. G.& C. Merriam Company, Publishers Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A. 1977. It is classified as a paraphilia by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association.

6. Stanley Semrau, M.D. and Gale Judy, Murderous Minds on Trial (2001).Toronto. pp 24-66. The Dundurn Group.

7. M’Naghten’s case, 8 Eng. Rep. 718, SEng. Rep. 722 (1843).

8. Delusion: a false belief that persists despite the facts and is common in some psychotic states. Webster’s Intermediate Dictionary. G.& C. Merriam Company, Publishers. Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A. 1977. Pp. 195.

9. Melamed, Yuval, Mentally Ill Who Commit Crimes: Punishment or Treatment?, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, March 2010, 38 (1), 100-103.

10. Waldman A: (199, January 4).Woman killed in a subway station attack. The New York Times.

11. Salize HJ; Dreissing H: Placement and treatment of mentally ill offenders: legislation and practice in EU member states. Final report, February 15, 2005. Available at:
12. United States v. Hinckley, 672 F.2d 115(D.C. Cir. 1982).

13. Freeman, 4 Denio 8 [sic] (1847). First use of the insanity defense in the United States. Available at:

14. Weiss, Kenneth J. and Gupta, Naha, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. December 2018, 46 (4) 503-512; DOI: http://

15. Congress wraps up a crime package. (1984). ABA Journal, 70(12), 44-46.

16. The Andrea Yates case: Insanity Trial, Phillip J. Resnick. Western Reserve University, School of Medicine (2007).

17. Melville JD, Naimark D: Punishing the insane: the verdict of guilty but mentally ill. Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry Law 30: 553-5, 2002.

18. Garner, Bryan A; McDanel, Becky R; Schultz, David W. Black Law Dictionary. St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. Page 376. (5th ed. 1996).

19. Sauer v. United States, 241 F. 2d 640(9th Cir. 1957).

20. Durham v. U.S., 94 U.S. App. D.C. 228, 214 F. 2d 862 (1954).

21. Washington v. U.S., 129 U.S. App. D.C. 29, 390 F. 2d 444 (1967).

22. Frendak v. U.S., 408 A. 2d 364 (1979).

23. Jones v. U.S., 463 U.S. 354, 103 S. Ct. 3043 (1983).

24. Foucha v. Louisiana, 112 S. Ct. 1780 (1992).

25. Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735, 126 S. Ct. 2709 (2006).

26. Andersen v. United States, 237 F. 2d 118, (1956).

27. Steele, Scott (May 20, 1996), “Abbotsford Killer Arrested”, Macleans. The Canadian Encyclopedia.

28. Terry, Zachary D; Billik Stephen B; Overlapping Universe: Understanding Legal Insanity and Psychosis (2010). Psychiatry Quarterly. DOI: 10.1007/s11126-010-9134-2.

29. Frederick, R.I. (2012). Insanity defense, diminished capacity mitigation. In D. Faust (Ed). Coping with psychiatric and psychological testimony: Based on the original work by Jay Ziskin (6th ed.)pp. 535-541. New York, NY, US. Oxford University Press.

30. Packer, I.K. (2015). Legal insanity and mens rea defenses. In B.L. Cutler and P.A. Zapf (Eds.) APA handbook of forensic psychology, Vol. 1: Individual and situational influences influences in criminal and civil context. Pp 87-114. Washington, D.C. US: American Psychological Association.

31. Rogers, Jeffrey L., et al, Insanity Defenses: contested or conceded?, 141 Am. J. Psychiatry 885,886 (1984).

32. Campos Rodríguez v. Pueblo de Puerto Rico, Tribunal de Apelaciones. Caso Número: KLAN2011-0769 (2012). [Translation by the author: Campos Rodriguez v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Court of Appeals. Case Number: KLAN2011-0769. (2012)].

33. Goldstein, Abraham S., The Insanity Defense, (1967). pp. 100-179. Yale University Press.

34. Moran, R. (1985). The Origen of as a Special Verdict: The Trial for Treason of James Hadfield. Law and Society Review. pp. 19, 487-519.
35. Mathews, S and Kennet, J, (eds), (2004), Special Issue on “Responsibility and Mental Impairment.” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27:pp. 395-503.

36. Borum, R. and Fulero, S. (1999). Empirical Research on the Insanity Defense and attempted reforms. Evidence toward Informed Policy. Law and Human Behavior, 23(3), pp. 375-394.

37. Clark, R. (1995). Insanity and the Death Penalty. Capital Punishment UK. Retrieved from:

38. Inderbitzin, R. (1969). Criminal Law-The ALI Model Penal Code Test. Lexis Nexis. Retrieved from:
39. Callahan, L.; McGreevey, M.;Morrissey, J; and Steadman, H.(1993). Before and After Hinckley:Evaluating Insanity Defense Reform. The Guilford Press. pp. 15-112.

40. Waelder, R. (1952) Psychiatry and the Problem of Criminal Responsibility. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 101 (3), pp. 378-390.

41. Caplan, L., The Insanity Defense and the Trial of John W. Hinckley, Jr. (1984). pp.10-125. Olympic Marketing Corp.

42. Turkewitz, J. (2015, July 9). Aurora Gunman Legally Insane, Psychiatrist Says. The New York Times. pp. A19.

43. Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..” [U.S. Const. Amend. V].

44. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

45. Pub. L. 93–595, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1926, enacted the Federal Rules of Evidence proposed by the Supreme Court, with amendments made by Congress, to take effect on July 1, 1975.

46. The Model Penal Code (MPC) is not law in any jurisdiction of the United States; however, it served and continues to serve as a basis for the replacement of existing criminal codes in over two-thirds of the states. Many states adopted portions of the MPC, but only states such as New Jersey, New York, and Oregon have enacted almost all of the provisions of it.

47. American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., Text Revision). Washington, DC.

48. The People of the State of Colorado v. James Holmes, 12CR1522.

49. Fingarette, H. and Fingarette A. (1979). Mental Disabilities and Criminal Responsibility. pp.148-153.

50. Rogers, R. and Shuman, D.W. (2000). Conducting Insanity Evaluations. (2nd ed.). pp.5-78. Guilford Press.

51. Hays, J. (2002). State of Texas v. Andrea Yates. Retrieved from The National Psychologist at:

52. Silva, J.; Ferrari, M. and Leong, G. (2002). The Case of Jeffrey Dahmer:Sexual Serial. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 47 (6).


La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.