Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Insanity defense
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Non compos mentis== ''[[Non compos mentis]]'' (Latin) is a legal term meaning "not of sound mind".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thesaurus.com/browse/non+compos+mentis|title=non compos mentis|website=thesaurus.com|access-date=2 February 2018|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180202190351/http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/non+compos+mentis|archive-date=2 February 2018}}</ref> ''Non compos mentis'' derives from the [[Latin]] ''non'' meaning "not", ''compos'' meaning "control" or "command", and ''mentis'' ([[genitive]] [[Grammatical number|singular]] of ''[[mens]]''), meaning "of mind". It is the direct opposite of ''[[Compos mentis]]'' (of a sound mind). Although typically used in law, this term can also be used metaphorically or figuratively; e.g. when one is in a confused state, intoxicated, or not of sound mind. The term may be applied when a determination of competency needs to be made by a physician for purposes of obtaining [[informed consent]] for treatments and, if necessary, assigning a surrogate to make health care decisions. While the proper sphere for this determination is in a court of law, this is practically, and most frequently, made by physicians in the clinical setting.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Appelbaum |first1=Paul S. |title=Assessment of patients' competence to consent to treatment |journal=The New England Journal of Medicine |date=1 November 2007 |volume=357 |issue=18 |pages=1834β40 |doi=10.1056/NEJMcp074045 |pmid=17978292|s2cid=28287262 }}</ref> In English law, the rule of ''non compos mentis'' was most commonly used when the defendant invoked religious or magical explanations for behaviour.<ref>{{Cite journal|doi= 10.2307/3475205|title=History of insanity as a defence to crime in English Criminal Law |last=Crotty |first=Homer D. |date=January 1924 |journal=California Law Review |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=105β123 |jstor=3475205 |doi-access=free }}</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)