In The Criminal Brain, Nicole Rafter first lays out the concept of ‘moral insanity.’ Rafter discusses the concept from an American perspective (Rush), a French perspective (Pinel), and an English one (Prichard).
What did ‘moral insanity’ mean? How did each of these theorists differ in their approach to the concept – and what were the implications for criminology as a science?
an theory arguably allows for the emergence of a political vacuum where necessity for the use of executive prerogative as suspending law but not creating new law, or necessity as excusing illegal conduct without rendering it legal, or suspending law, may allow for the exploitation of such a political gap by the executive without the adjudication of the legislature. In this way, one cannot acknowledge the legitimacy of extralegal action without weakening the conviction that legitimate action must accord with the law; by imbuing such authority to the executive, it may call into question the natural and authoritative law as set into place by the representatives of the legislature, thus undermining their jurisdiction over the regulation of the scope of prerogative. Furthermore, Locke’s prerogative theory is largely dependent upon the the legislature as representative of the people, and wider society as elected officials. The enforcement of both natural laws and the executive are, according the Lockean theory, dependent upon the support of the common good; “Such consent is expressed not only through voluntary compliance with a rule, but also through its persistent recognition as authoritative coupled with consistent efforts to adjudicate violations and coerce compliance.” Thus, it is critical that governments are charged by the consent of the individual, in order for the just execution of such prerogative powers at the hand of the executive; “i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them”. In this way, “the true basis of any “law,” whether constitutional or international, appears to be relatively universal acceptance of—or consent to—a rule within a relevant community.” It may however be considered that by endowing the executive with such scope regarding the use of prerogative that a state of tyranny may emerge as these powers become unchecked and thus exploited. This may occur situationally where it becomes difficult to distinguish between legitimate use of prerogative and tyranny; moreover alluring “the exercise of power beyond right”. It is in this case, Locke states, that dispute may emerge between the ex>GET ANSWER