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.”

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”