Global Comparison On Sentencing Procedure As Per Therapeutic Jurisprudence
- IJLLR Journal
- 9 minutes ago
- 1 min read
Ekata Deb, LLM-Criminal & Security Laws, REVA University, Bengaluru
ABSTRACT
This comparative analysis examines how principles of Therapeutic Jurisprudence shape sentencing procedures in the United States, United Kingdom, and India, focusing on cases involving Legal Insanity, Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS), and Post-Partum Psychosis (PPP) leading to homicide or filicide. By evaluating statutory frameworks, landmark case laws, and specialized courts or provisions—such as NGRI and GBMI verdicts in the U.S., diminished responsibility and the Infanticide Acts in the U.K., and the M’Naghten-derived provisions in India—this study highlights divergent paths toward rehabilitative justice. The analysis reveals that while the U.K. most comprehensively integrates therapeutic jurisprudence through hospital orders and infanticide statutes, the U.S. exhibits a patchwork of reforms via mental health courts, and India remains predominantly punitive with limited therapeutic measures.
Keywords: Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Legal Insanity, Diminished Responsibility, Battered Woman Syndrome, Postpartum Psychosis
