Comments on: Balancing guilt: Rethinking mens rea and the criminalisation of neurodivergence

By: Anon

Fri, 23 May 2025 08:37:35 +0000

The problem is that, whether you are in a diagnosed bucket or not, everybody’s brain is wired differently from everybody else – it’s just a feature of humanity. Where do you then draw the line between what to make allowances for etc. – the idea of some people being “neurotypical” is a dangerous concept IMO – everyone has their struggles with human interaction, some more and some less.

]]>

By: Anon

Thu, 22 May 2025 09:59:46 +0000

Indeed it would be legally unsound to conflate neurodivergence to mental illness, because it is not a mental illness as you correctly point out. Yet, some effects – products of neurodivergence – may fall within scope of a disease of the mind in some particular circumstances, and such a defendant, having made out the other limbs of the insanity defence, would have a defence.

Your points about cross examination and examination in chief are very good, I have seen counsel use very loaded questions with vulnerable witnesses or defendants – which does not help their case at all, if the judge needs to intervene (which is always extremely awkward to watch).

The bottom line, I suppose, is that we need to remember that being in court and being examined or cross examined is not a very pleasant experience for most people. It is even less pleasant for those that are vulnerable. So, we should all strive to be respectful.

]]>

By: Madeleine

Thu, 22 May 2025 08:43:02 +0000

This is incredibly interesting – thank you so much for sharing. I really enjoyed reading this.

]]>