NCJ Number
14032
Date Published
1974
Length
353 pages
Annotation
ARGUMENT THAT THE ABANDONMENT OF A 1954, LIBERALIZED INSANITY DEFENSE DOCTRINE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS UNFORTUNATE AND INCOMPATIBLE WITH ENLIGHTENED STANDARDS.
Abstract
IN BRINGING INTO CURRENT FOCUS THE INSANITY DEFENSE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THIS STUDY REAPPRAISES THE DOCTRINE IN MUCH OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING WORLD. THE TIME FOR REAPPRAISAL IS PARTICULARLY OPPORTUNE, THE AUTHOR CONTENDS, SINCE RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS HAVE INDICATED A GROWING LACK OF JUDICIAL RESPECT FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE MENTALLY ILL. IN THE 1954 LANDMARK CASE OF DURHAM V. UNITED STATES, THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DECLARED THAT AN ACT WHICH WAS THE PRODUCT OF MENTAL DISORDER WAS NOT SUBJECT TO PUNISHMENT AND PURPORTED TO PUT THIS LIBERALIZED INSANITY DEFENSE WITHIN REACH OF EVEN INDIGENT DEFENDANTS. THE PROMISE OF CHANGE THAT ACCOMPANIED THE DECISION WAS BELIED BY EVENTS, AS ILLUSTRATED BY DETAILED DISCUSSIONS OF RELEVANT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CRIMINAL CASES. IN THE NEARLY TWO DECADES OF ITS ADMINISTRATION, THIS LIBERAL DOCTRINE WAS LARGELY REJECTED BY THE PSYCHIATRIC PROFESSION WHOSE COOPERATION AS EXPERT WITNESSES WAS ESSENTIAL FOR ITS SUCCESS. THE POOR WERE FORCED TO RELY ON MEDIOCRE AND PROSECUTION-ORIENTED GOVERNMENT PSYCHIATRISTS AND THE SUCCESS OF THE INSANITY DEFENSE WAS DICTATED BY A PSYCHIATRIC FIAT FOUNDED ON CONSIDERATIONS OF A HOSPITAL HOUSING SHORTAGE RATHER THAN PURE DIAGNOSTIC JUDGEMENT. ONLY THE WEALTHY COULD AFFORD TO CHALLENGE THE JUDGEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT PSYCHIATRISTS. THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT THE EVENTUAL ABANDONMENT OF THE DURHAM RULE AND THE THE ACCEPTANCE OF A REVISED VERSION OF THE EARLIER 19TH CENTURY DOCTRINE MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO A DOMINANT REACTIONARY TEMPER OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. THIS BOOK WILL BE OF INTEREST TO POLITICAL SCIENTISTS, SOCIOLOGISTS, LAWYERS, BEHAVIORAL SCIENTISTS AND OTHERS INTERESTED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEGAL DOCTRINE. (SNI ABSTRACT)