skip to main content
Idioma:

CAN THE MAD BE GUILTY?: review

Anderson, David C ; David C. Anderson is a member of the editorial board of The New York Times

New York Times, 1983

New York, N.Y: New York Times Company

Texto completo disponível

Citações Citado por
  • Título:
    CAN THE MAD BE GUILTY?: review
  • Autor: Anderson, David C ; David C. Anderson is a member of the editorial board of The New York Times
  • Assuntos: BOOKS AND LITERATURE ; Herrin, Richard ; Hinckley, John W Jr ; Morris, Norval
  • É parte de: New York Times, 1983
  • Descrição: Mr. [Norval Morris]'s meticulous, densely argued book includes a pleasant surprise: two chapters of fiction dramatizing aspects of the insanity defense debate. They are written, for reasons known only to Mr. Morris, in the style of George Orwell and set in Burma of the 1920's as portrayed in Orwell's novel ''Burmese Days.'' The device does not quite work, but the stories are crafted with a sure hand. Mr. Morris might make his formidable insight into the law yet more accessible to the public by giving us more fiction. His chapters of argument exemplify the clarity and toughness of mind for which he is well known. When the court's power to imprison overlaps with its power to commit, justice suffers, Mr. Morris contends. Those powers first become confused over the question of bringing the mentally ill to trial. In 1971 the Supreme Court ruled that the state could hold a mentally handicapped person charged with a crime only so long as he makes progress toward fitness to stand trial. If he is ''unrestorably incompetent,'' the state must either release him or move to have him civilly committed as dangerous or unable to care for himself. Yet a civil commitment hearing, involving less rigorous process than a criminal trial, may not be adequate either to protect the rights of the defendant or establish the truth about his alleged crime. It is not hard to imagine an innocent retardate arrested, found ''unrestorable'' and civilly committed while the real criminal remains at large. What about the moral issue? For the sake of decency, shouldn't mental handicap be given as much weight as infancy, since it too relieves the defendant of full responsibility for his behavior? Such an argument, Mr. Morris contends, is disingenuous. ''The traditions of being possessed of evil spirits, of being bewitched, confront the practices of a mental health system which increasingly fashions therapeutic practices to hold patients responsible for their conduct,'' he points out. Modern sociology clouds the issue further by making clear that social deprivation may have as much or more to do with criminal behavior than psychosis. But the most devastating blow to the moral argument lies in the reality of life in today's criminal courts: ''The plea of ... insanity is rarely to be heard in city courts of first instance which handle the grist of the mill of the criminal law - though a great deal of pathology is to be seen in the parade of accused and convicted persons before these courts. As a practical matter we reserve this defense for a few sensational cases... Operationally, the defense of insanity is a tribute, it seems to me, to our hypocrisy rather than to our morality.''
  • Editor: New York, N.Y: New York Times Company
  • Idioma: Inglês
Voltar para lista de resultados
Ir para página anteriorAnterior Resultado  3 AvançarIr para próxima página

  • Realização: ABCD-USP USP   Logos de Redes Sociais: Freepik

Buscando em bases de dados remotas. Favor aguardar.