Abstract
When a person breaks the law, inquiry may be made into why he acted in an illegal manner and, if he satisfies the relevant test of criminal exculpation, he will be held blameless under the law. Although a range of explanations of behavior is possible, when examining criminal responsibility, the law is concerned only with those excuses which bear on moral culpability. This comment suggests an alternative to the absolutist notion that the defendant is either completely responsible or completely irresponsible for his unlawful act. It is contended that cognitive and volitive capacities exist by degrees and that a fairer, more socially useful legal test of responsibility would make punishment more nearly proportional to the defendant's capacity at the time of the unlawful behavior.
First Page
343
Recommended Citation
Maine Law Review,
Graduated Responsibility as an Alternative to Current Tests of Determining Criminal Capacity,
25
Me. L. Rev.
343
(1973).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol25/iss2/16