{"id":3542,"date":"2022-10-06T20:37:12","date_gmt":"2022-10-06T20:37:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/live-cornell-law-review.pantheonsite.io\/?p=3542"},"modified":"2026-05-27T17:36:07","modified_gmt":"2026-05-27T17:36:07","slug":"a-response-dependent-perspective-on-the-theory-of-insanity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/2022\/10\/06\/a-response-dependent-perspective-on-the-theory-of-insanity\/","title":{"rendered":"A Response-Dependent Perspective on the Theory of Insanity"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&#8220;This Note has three parts. The first introduces the idea of response-dependent responsibility in more detail. The second part argues that the traditional tests for insanity assume the view of responsibility the response-dependent account sought to correct and that the failure of these tests to provide satisfactory results follows from that assumption. The third part proposes that a quietism be adopted in the theory of insanity and considers what effect, if any, the quietist conclusion should have on the administration of the insanity defense in practice.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">To read this Note, please click here: <em><a href=\"https:\/\/live-cornell-law-review.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Babij-note-final.pdf\">A Response-Dependent Perspective on the Theory of Insanity<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>&#8220;This Note has three parts. The first introduces the idea of response-dependent responsibility in more detail. The second part argues that the traditional tests for insanity assume the view of responsibility the response-dependent account sought to correct and that the failure of these tests to provide satisfactory results follows from that assumption. The third part&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[89,46,721],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3542","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-issue-5-print-volume-107","category-notes","category-print-volume-107"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3542","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3542"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3542\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5314,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3542\/revisions\/5314"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3542"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3542"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3542"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}