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
Diminished responsibility
(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!
===State law=== [[California]] was the first state in the U.S. to adopt the diminished capacity defense, beginning with ''People v. Wells''<ref>''People v. Wells'' 202 P.2d 53 (1949)</ref> and ''People v. Gorshen''.<ref>''People v. Gorshen'' 336 P.2d 492 (1959)</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://myweb.wvnet.edu/~jelkins/lawpsy04/diminished.html |title=Diminished Capacity |access-date=2006-05-16 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060909112146/http://myweb.wvnet.edu/~jelkins/lawpsy04/diminished.html |archive-date=2006-09-09 }}</ref> The doctrine would soon be abolished by [[ballot initiative]] in 1982 following the negative publicity surrounding the case of [[Dan White]], who had [[Moscone–Milk assassinations|killed George Moscone and Harvey Milk]]. While White's defense team did argue successfully for a ruling of diminished capacity, resulting in a verdict of [[voluntary manslaughter]] rather than [[murder]], an [[urban legend]] that the defense had blamed White's actions on the ingestion of sugar and [[junk food]] (the so-called "[[Twinkie defense]]") sprang up out of inaccurate media coverage.<ref name="Myth">{{cite web |last=Pogash |first=Carol |title=Myth of the 'Twinkie defense': The verdict in the Dan White case wasn't based on his ingestion of junk food |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |date=2003-11-23 |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/23/INGRE343501.DTL&hw=twinkie+defense&sn=001&sc=1000 |access-date=2007-08-10}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.snopes.com/legal/twinkie.htm |website=Snopes.com |title=The Twinkie Defense |date=30 October 1999}}</ref> One participant in the debate over diminished capacity rulings waved a Twinkie in the air to make his point.<ref name="Myth"/> Currently, the ''[[California Penal Code]]'' states (2002), "The defense of diminished capacity is hereby abolished ... there shall be no defense of diminished capacity, diminished responsibility, or [[irresistible impulse]]..."<ref>{{Citation |title = California Penal Code |publisher = California State Legislature |at = sec. 25a, 28b |url = http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=25-29.8 |access-date = 2015-02-22 |url-status = dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160304072525/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=25-29.8 |archive-date = 2016-03-04 }}</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)