Criminal Responsibility

Abstract

Relations between representatives of the legal profession and psychiatrists cannot be regarded with much satisfaction by either side?except in so far as satisfaction can be obtained by acid criticism of the other. The fundamental difficulties, though clear, are not always evident to the man in the street and are particularly easy to neglect when involved in the highly sensational atmosphere of a murder trial; this is of course particularly so if the details are horrific or sexual or both and if a plea of insanity is raised in defence. It may therefore be helpful to restate the points at issue. The first point is that lawyers and doctors talk in different terms. This is not quite so simple as to say, in the words of a judge, that one language is forensic and one scientific, for the confusion is made worse confounded by the fact that certain terms are used by the two professions in different senses. Further, it is very easy for discussion to get bogged down in terminological misconception : readers of the Heath trial?just published in the Notable British Trial Series (William Hodges, Glasgow, 1953)?will notice the confusion of "moral defect" and "moral insanity". The second point is that the methods of law and medicine in arriving at the facts of a case are very different. The law holds that the truth will best come to light by allowing opposing counsel to bring forward opposing views, in black or white. To the doctor much is grey, and this is especially so for the psychiatrist who realises that if he is to get a full account of the patient's conduct and motives, he must show the greatest sympathy and tolerance. Because of this and because of the deeper understanding he may thus obtain, he is likely to be (as well as to seem) more sympathetic, either in his consulting room or in court.