Join Boozy and his guest, the prosecutor from Oz, Scuff, as they discuss the ins and outs of the controversial defense of intoxication as applied to criminal law!
Also discussed – Pro Se defendants are as capable as narcissistic trial attorneys, Judges not being held responsible, and lawyers bickering!
Recorded before a live audience (sort of, it’s the internet) on 6/21/2021
Support the show (http://www.patreon.com/lawyersandliquor) and get access to the research notes, a special Discord server, and more for each episode!
On this Episode of Boozy’s Legal Funhouse:
The Boozy Barrister/Boozy Badger is joined by Scuff, a Kansas prosecutor, for a talk about the basics of The Guilty Mind and criminal culpability in this episode of Boozy’s Legal Funhouse. On deck is a description of it means to have the requisite mental state for committing crimes, the unfairness of strict liability felonies, the introduction of Dipshit the Unicorn, and more. Also, Scuff surprises Boozy by being a prosecutor with a sense of actual justice. Also discussed is defrauding the elderly of Coca Cola stock, expanding the federal judiciary, and pun filled Twitter love letters to Joe Biden.
Links for This Episode:
State v. Blake:
If you’d like to support Boozy’s Legal Funhouse or Lawyers and Liquor, you can do so at:
As we catch up on backlog, here’s the second episode of Boozy’s Legal Funhouse, a weekly stream/podcast where we discuss legal news and issues, interview attorneys, and generally jackass around with a law degree!
This episode was recorded 1/24/2021
Our guest this week was an old friend and former public defender who joined me for a discussion of criminal law and criminal defense, answering questions from Patreon supporters. Also, he did the entire interview wearing a giant, unblinking dog head which was kind of unsettling.
Lawyers are weird, folks.
We are now available on Spotify and Apple Podcasts! So there you go!
If you like Lawyers & Liquor and want to support me, you can toss financial support at the site and its creator on Patreon, through Ko-Fi, or even directly through Paypal! Any help is appreciated, and it keeps me from having to…you know…sell ad space on the site and shit. Want some merch? Check out the 44 minute digital download of “Disappointing Comedy” recorded live at a convention in D.C. right before all this shit happened for $10! Boozy streams games and family stuff most weeknights at 7 PM Eastern time over on Twitch.
Welcome back to Lawyers & Liquor where we’re going to keep the crazy train slamming down the tracks today as we lean into part 4 of our examination of the insanity defense in the courts!
If you missed the first three posts discussing the evolution of the insanity defense through the ages, the M’Naghten rule, the Durham rule, and what the hell an irresistible impulse is, you can find those here, here, and here respectively. You don’t really need to read them to understand today’s discussion of the fourth insanity as a defense standard, the “substantial capacity” test, but I’d really suggest it because – as you’ll see in a few – they all sort of tie together in how we got here.
So with that said, let’s get what is essentially a criminal law review out of the way so in a year some law student can be like “Wow, this was really unhelpful and confusing! Thanks Boozy!”
But first, let’s get the form disclaimers out of the way.
Continue reading “The Model Penal Code and Trent’s Teabagging: Insanity as a Defense, Part 4.”
Welcome back to Lawyers & Liquor and oh my god has this series become somewhat in bad taste since I started writing it last week. Over the recent weekend there were two mass shootings in the United States, killing in excess of thirty people and wounding many others, and the national conversation has gone to the most reasonable place ever since then: mental health care. Because, of course, no matter what happens it can’t be the availability of firearms that can empty out thirty shots in less time than it takes to read this post, reload, and empty out thirty more. No, the real problem is that all of the people who engage in mass shootings are obviously mentally unsound…which is a no shit statement because generally mentally sound people don’t consider “shooting a bunch of people in a retail store is the perfect way to express myself” to be a reasonable conclusion to reach.
However, as we talked about last time, merely being mentally unsound isn’t enough to properly defend the actions of an accused party in court. And nothing we’re going to talk about today is going to change that shit, because while M’Naghten, in some form, is still the majority rule throughout the United States, even under the tests used by the minority of states to make a determination of whether insanity relieves a party of criminal liability the standard still wouldn’t be met simply be means of mental defect. That’s right, today we’re going to examine the three other tests used to determine whether or not a defendant’s insistence that they shouldn’t be punished because of their mental state is,unlike their alleged mentality, sound.
But first, a disclaimer.
Continue reading “Durham and the Little Man of Reason: Insanity as a Defense, Part 2”