Morally excused but socially excluded: Denying agency through the defense of mental impairment.
Defendants can deny they have agency, and thus responsibility, for a crime by using a defense of mental impairment. We argue that although this strategy may help defendants evade blame, it may carry longer-term social costs, as lay people's perceptions of a person's agency might determine...
Main Authors: | Melissa de Vel-Palumbo, Chelsea Schein, Rose Ferguson, Melissa Xue-Ling Chang, Brock Bastian |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2021-01-01
|
Series: | PLoS ONE |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252586 |
Similar Items
-
Aesthetic Excuses and Moral Crimes: The Convergence of Morality and Aesthetics in Nabokov's Lolita
by: Green, Jennifer Elizabeth
Published: (2006) -
When do circumstances excuse? Moral prejudices and beliefs about the true self drive preferences for agency-minimizing explanations
by: Cullen, S.
Published: (2018) -
No more excuses
by: Whetstone, Rodrick Derek
Published: (2012) -
Excuses and exceptions
by: Miranda del Corral
Published: (2015-07-01) -
Responsibility and Excuses
by: McCormick, K.
Published: (1974)