Mentality and the Criminal Law
- Author:
Davis, M.D., D.Sc., and JK.
VVilshire. John Wright and Sons, Ltd.? Bristol. Simpkin Marshall, Ltd. London, 1935. Price 5/-.
This book aims at presenting in a concise manner the salient points connected with the law in this country regarding the commission of crimes by mentally disordered persons, so that students and practitioners of law may obtain useful information thereon with an economy of time.
A preliminary chapter discusses briefly the meaning of the words ” disease ” and ” mind.’ There follow short chapters on insanity, metis rea and intent, drunkenness, irresistible in1’ pulse, insanity from the legal point of view, the significance of the McNaghten Rule, and advocacy in cases involving mental disabilityThe more important statutory enactments relating to mental states are conveniently set out in an appendix. There is also a short bibliography and a list of cases to which reference has been made.
In the section dealing with the methods ^ investigating mental states no mention is made of the importance of ascertaining as precisely as possible the circumstances associated with criminal conduct, and of the necessity balance facts in relation thereto which indicate insanity against those which indicate sanity. J is essential for the medical witness to do thig as opposing counsel will examine him upon these matters, and unless he has full information con’ cerning the events relating to the crime is liable to have his evidence rebutted.
The authors favour the definition of mens enunciated by Cave J. in Chisholm v. Doultona blameworthy condition of mind which is some’ times negligence, sometimes malice and some’ times guilty knowledge. The section on intent15 set out clearly and succinctly, but the differen^ between intention and motive is not discussed’ That there is a difference has been accepted lawyers, medical men, and psychologists, an the psychiatrist is concerned more with th motive for a crime than the intention of th criminal. The reviewer has suggested elsewhefe that, from the medical point of view, intent[?’[ in the Criminal Courts refers to the objects effect which the law-breaker contrives to pr?^ duce on others by his act, and that motive to the subjective effect with its accompany11^ emotion which he desires to produce up0 himself,
Reference is made to the recommendation of foe Committee on Insanity and Crime over which Lord Atkin presided in 1922, that it should be recognised that a person charged criminally with an offence was not responsible for his act when was committed under an impulse which he vvas by mental disease deprived of the power resist. The authors refer also to the fact that ten of twelve High Court Judges to whom the fecommendation was submitted advised against hs acceptance. The House of Lords, however, did not reject the recommendation until they had heard the views of some of their eminent legal colleagues, including the Lord Chief Justice, who introduced to the House the view? ?f the twelve Judges.
Attention is called to the fact that most of the condemned prisoners who have been subsequently reprieved on the grounds of insanity have been insane from the medical rather than ‘r?m the legal point of view. It should be reniembered that the Secretary of State acts upon the findings of the medical enquiry which he orders under Section 2 (4) of The Criminal Lunatics Act, 1884, and that Lord Atkin’s Committee reported:
“We wish to emphasise that the statutory enquiry is intended to investigate the prisoner’s sanity or insanity, i.e., his condition from a medical point of view, and it is our opinion that this enquiry should still be held under the siibsection and we have no change in the procedure to recommend. No doubt in some cases the investigation and the exercise of the discretion involve a review and a reversal of the express finding of the jury. So far from this being objectionable we think it essential that it should form part of the duty of the Home Secretary, lust as it is in exercising the prerogative of mercy to which this power is closely akin.” It would be interesting to know the facts which led the authors to conclude that a prisoner was ^uffering from temporary insanity when he was t?und at the first trial to be unfit to plead, in j^Pite of the fact that when brought up later for J^al authoritative medical evidence was given hat he had feigned insanity on the first occasion and _ this was not challenged by the original Medical witnesses.
The book is brought up to date, and the ^uthors are to be congratulated upon achieving j^eir purpose and the clear manner in which .^ey have presented a considerable amount of formation in a small compass. W. Norwood East.
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.