The Model Penal Code and Trent’s Teabagging: Insanity as a Defense, Part 4.

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.”

“Policeman At The Elbow”: Insanity as a Defense, Part 3.

Welcome back to Lawyers & Liquor where we’re going to keep the crazy train slamming down the tracks today as we lean into part 3 of our examination of the insanity defense in the courts! If you missed the first two posts, where we examined M’Naghten and Durham as standards by which to determine if a defendant has the proper mental state to be guilty of a crime, you can find those here and here respectively. but we’ve got a lot of ground to cover today, so we’re just going to dive in without much of a recap because I don’t see why it’s my responsibility to summarize a bunch of shit for you. Seriously. Go read them. I’m not your momma.

But first, let’s get the form disclaimers out of the way.

Continue reading ““Policeman At The Elbow”: Insanity as a Defense, Part 3.”

Liable But Not Culpable: Lexplaining The Criminal and Civil Justice Systems, Part 1

It’s May! Well, it’s halfway through May, and so in my infinite wisdom and general niceness, because I’m simply on heck of a guy who cares about those lowly law students, I’ve decided that I’m going to do a bit of a primer on a key difference in law that most people don’t understand.  Hell, I’ve met lawyers that don’t really understand it. It’s because the difference that we’re talking about here is the difference between criminal culpability and civil liability, and the difference between what criminal intent and civil intent are.

Have I gone long enough without cussing that it won’t show up on the article previews in social media? Thank fuck.  Alright, listen, if you’re a lawyer and you don’t already know this shit, hand in your law license.  There is literally no reason for you to be practicing law. No reason, whatsoever. This is some basic ass shit, like, so basic we’re talking “pumpkin spice latte wearing ugg boots” levels of basic.   There’s absolutely no reason a practicing attorney shouldn’t already be aware of this first-year-of-law-school bullshit, but it was requested by a reader that I dig into the difference between the two, and that’s what we’re going to do today: the difference between civil liability and criminal culpability.

But before I even start to talk about that, the difference in the state of mind needed and the types of shit that happens, we gotta make sure the non-lawyers out there understand the difference between criminal and civil.  And that means, of course, that we’re going to end up doing a Lexplanation (you like that? I like it.  It’s a portmanteau of lex, the Latin for law, and explanation, the English for “talking slowly and loudly to morons”).

So, I don’t know guys, go get some coffee or something and see what Popehat is up to? He’s normally got some decent shit on his site.  I’ll be over here forcefeeding basic legal knowledge to muggles and walking malpractice suits.

Continue reading “Liable But Not Culpable: Lexplaining The Criminal and Civil Justice Systems, Part 1”

Fetish Friday: The Questionable Legality of Consent

Welcome to the second Fetish Friday here on Lawyers & Liquor where I’m going to walk you leather and latex clad fetishists through a legal issue surrounding the world of, quite literally, Fucking kinks. So Bigs, cover the eyes of your littles or send them somewhere to go play, owners go crate your pups, and scat enthusiasts, put a plug in it and hold it for later because this morning I’m gonna run my mouth like a bad boy about legality of consent in a BDSM atmosphere, namely, does consent remove the risk of legal action.

Hold on to your paddled-red asscheeks, folks, because the answer is “Probably not.”

Continue reading “Fetish Friday: The Questionable Legality of Consent”