Impairment Is Excuse
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- CRIMINAL1
Example wrong choices
19602_church_pantry · CRIMINAL · Choice AYes, because diminished capacity is the same as insanity.
Why it's attractive
The two doctrines are distinct. Diminished capacity is mens rea evidence negating specific intent; insanity is a complete excuse. They operate on different levels and have different requirements.
Why it's wrong
The two doctrines are distinct. Diminished capacity is mens rea evidence negating specific intent; insanity is a complete excuse. They operate on different levels and have different requirements.
19602_church_pantry · CRIMINAL · Choice BNo, because mental-impairment evidence is never admissible in criminal cases.
Why it's attractive
Mental-impairment evidence IS admissible — for specific-intent elements (via diminished capacity) or for insanity. The categorical 'never admissible' framing is wrong.
Why it's wrong
Mental-impairment evidence IS admissible — for specific-intent elements (via diminished capacity) or for insanity. The categorical 'never admissible' framing is wrong.
19602_church_pantry · CRIMINAL · Choice CYes, because the traumatic brain injury made Hannah impulsive.
Why it's attractive
True the brain injury made Hannah impulsive. That does not negate general intent for battery. Diminished capacity only negates specific intent. The fact that her judgment was impaired does not mean she lacked the intent to make offensive contact.
Why it's wrong
True the brain injury made Hannah impulsive. That does not negate general intent for battery. Diminished capacity only negates specific intent. The fact that her judgment was impaired does not mean she lacked the intent to make offensive contact.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →