Postpartum Psychosis: A Legitimate Defense for Negating Criminal Responsibility (Comment)

Part I traces the slaughter of children throughout history and literature, and reveals the functions and reasons behind the ancient practice of infanticide. Part II discusses the medical debate regarding the causes of postpartum psychosis. Part III evaluates the legal recognition of postpartum psychosis as a defense in terms of usage and success rates. Analyzing postpartum depression to determine whether it meets the legal test of insanity, it compares the English common law to the American perspective of infanticide. Four tests are examined in detail: the M'Naghten test, the American Law Institute Model Penal Code test, the "Irresistible Impulse" test, and the Durham or "Product" test. Part IV looks to the effects of gender on sentencing, and compares sentencing for maternal as opposed to paternal infanticides. It examines how mothers are punished under the Texas justice system. Postpartum psychosis is a gender-specific defense. Part IV determines whether gender is a relevant factor in the charge of murder, and examines the validity of postpartum psychosis as an "Excuse" defense, along with the partial defense of "Extreme Mental and Emotional Disturbance." Evaluating current Congressional bills regarding postpartum disorders, Part IV also addresses the Texas approach to postpartum psychosis, as related to mental illness through the Texas Mental Health Code and the Texas Penal Code. Part V advocates proposed approaches to the defense of postpartum psychosis by either changing the burden of proof or considering such a defense as a mitigating factor at sentencing, if not both; it advocates the possibility of manslaughter for infanticide and involuntary manslaughter for neonaticide. Lastly, the Texas Penal Code and proposed amendments are analyzed and compared to the "guilty but mentally ill" standard' of other states, as well as the Model Penal Code. Part V ultimately looks to various statutes-state, federal, and foreign-for possible answers to the puzzle of postpartum psychosis in Texas courts today

Postpartum Psychosis: A Legitimate Defense for Negating Criminal Responsibility?

Infanticide is the most prevalent violent crime committed by women and has occurred throughout history for various reasons including sacrifice, birth control, eugenics, shame, and fear of punishment for adultery. Postpartum mood disorders have been recognized as a legitimate mental illness since the fourth century, and approximately fifty to eighty percent of new mothers experience some degree of depression after giving birth. Postpartum depression can progress into psychosis so quickly that new mothers may not even notice impairment of thinking skills. Defendants face many problems when using postpartum psychosis as a defense. One of the challenges of presenting postpartum psychosis as a defense is juries and factfinders likely have particular bias regarding motherhood, infanticide, and the mother’s fate. Additionally, postpartum psychosis afflicting the mother during commission of infanticide likely has worn off by the time she reaches trial, further complicating the defense of a debilitating mental illness. Use of the insanity defense in Texas is rare and often results in defendants spending more time in mental hospitals than they would have spent in prison compared to other defenses. Creating a statute to treat infanticide cases and postpartum psychosis based on an explicit justification considering factors involving individual blameworthiness on a case-by-case basis is a viable solution. Another solution includes allowing a “guilty but mentally ill” verdict as a supplement to the insanity defense, and the addition of mitigating factors and education about postpartum psychosis before reaching a verdict. These changes will prevent the uneven treatment and emphasis on punishment for mothers who commit infanticide and force society to examine their biases about the social construct of motherhood

Postpartum Psychosis: A Legitimate Defense for Negating Criminal Responsibility (Comment)

Part I traces the slaughter of children throughout history and literature, and reveals the functions and reasons behind the ancient practice of infanticide. Part II discusses the medical debate regarding the causes of postpartum psychosis. Part III evaluates the legal recognition of postpartum psychosis as a defense in terms of usage and success rates. Analyzing postpartum depression to determine whether it meets the legal test of insanity, it compares the English common law to the American perspective of infanticide. Four tests are examined in detail: the M'Naghten test, the American Law Institute Model Penal Code test, the "Irresistible Impulse" test, and the Durham or "Product" test. Part IV looks to the effects of gender on sentencing, and compares sentencing for maternal as opposed to paternal infanticides. It examines how mothers are punished under the Texas justice system. Postpartum psychosis is a gender-specific defense. Part IV determines whether gender is a relevant factor in the charge of murder, and examines the validity of postpartum psychosis as an "Excuse" defense, along with the partial defense of "Extreme Mental and Emotional Disturbance." Evaluating current Congressional bills regarding postpartum disorders, Part IV also addresses the Texas approach to postpartum psychosis, as related to mental illness through the Texas Mental Health Code and the Texas Penal Code. Part V advocates proposed approaches to the defense of postpartum psychosis by either changing the burden of proof or considering such a defense as a mitigating factor at sentencing, if not both; it advocates the possibility of manslaughter for infanticide and involuntary manslaughter for neonaticide. Lastly, the Texas Penal Code and proposed amendments are analyzed and compared to the "guilty but mentally ill" standard' of other states, as well as the Model Penal Code. Part V ultimately looks to various statutes-state, federal, and foreign-for possible answers to the puzzle of postpartum psychosis in Texas courts today

Appreciation to referees, 2023

Saif Benjaafar, Editor-in-Chief of Service Science, thanks the referees who have generously provided expert counsel and guidance on a voluntary basis to the journal. Without them, the journal would not be able to function. The following list acknowledges those who acted as referees for papers considered during this past calendar year

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field