Evening star., 1954-11-27

nature OF the OppOSltlOn 20 the decision
OF the D. c. Court Of Appeals in the
Durham Case, decision which had
thought would be hailed by men of good
win as an important milestone Of
progress in legal-psychiatric history.
Now II seems that q part Of the oppo-
sition Is on q metaphysical basis One
can infer from the manner In which
the anonymous sPsychiatrist." whose
letter appeared November Is in The
star. uses words that he conceives OF
the metaphysical basis from which he
argues as one which has been laid down
once and for all time. He does not ex-
pIicitly say this, hut it Is the impression
received and, in charity, I assume that
he has some good reason not to be
explicit about either his metaphysic
or his name. 81
myself stand In the Judaeo- Chris
tiar1 tradition and find myself philo-
sophically and religiously In close SYM
pathy with Thomas Jefferson and other
nke-minded founders Of this Republic.
do not perceive any radical divergence
between this traditional American point
Of view and that represented by the
proponents of the decision in the Dur
ham Case. believe that man at his
best is rational animal capable Of
freedom Of action.
AS a clinical psychologist received Q
part Of my training In the Washington
School of Psychiatry. In that school /
learned that the view of human acts as
mere chains Of biologically and psy-
chically determined causes and effects"
Ito quote 'PSychiatrist') was left be-
hind some time ago and that much
more complex concepts than q chain Of
cause and effect are necessary to COM
prehend the phenomena Of the natural
sciences as well as the study Of man.
"Psychiatrist" seems to believe that
anyone who defends the decision in the
Durham Case Is an old-fashioned philo-
sophical materialist. This is not so and
! suggest that on this score sPsychia-
trist" can feel treasured for I think
that he is fitting with windmills.
In fairness to the layman 1t must
be made clear that the psychiatric po-
sition represented by the decision in
the Durham Case is not limited to q
particular brand of psychiatry, nor
does it require belief in a particular
philosophy, theology, or metaphysic.
It is based on the simple observation
which any one can make who takes
the trouble to talk to psychotic pa
tients in mental hospitals that many
of them are just as capable Of telling
right from wrong as is the anonymous
psychiatrist and as are most solid cit
izens. In fact they often have more
suitable consciences than many. "sane"
people. This observation can be made
by Buddhists, Mohammedans, Chris
tianS, Jews and atheists If there are
any. It does not 4ave anything to do
with the doctrine Of free will. The "in-
sane" too, most of them. have eaten
of the fruit of the tree of the knowl-
edge of good and evil.
The decision in the Durham Case
simply recognizes that there Is group
of insane" people who can tell the
difference between right and wrong
and who are not driven by an irresist-
ible impulse lin any ordinary sense OF
the word and who still commit de-
structive acts on the basis of insanity.
Let me give an example. A patient in a
mental hospital believes that he is
being kept unlawfully in concentra-
tion camp by group Of people who
have destroyed his family and who are
enemies of his country. He believes
that the attendants are Communist
agents who try to force him to eat
poisoned food. Carefully he plots his
escape which includes killing one of
the attendants. If you ask this man
whether it is right or wrong for pa
tient to kill hospital attendant who
is simply doing his duty, he will tell
you without the slightest doubt that
1t is wrong. His deed is based on gross
misinterpretation of his situation,
misinterpretation which has deep emo
tional roots and which is not amenable
to reasoning and augmentation. Ev-
cry psychiatrist, whatever his philos-
ophy, would agree that this man was
insane. But his condition is not COW
cred by the old legal definition of in
sanity. It is covered adequately by the
new definition in the Durham Case.
Now it seems that second part Of
the opposition to the decision is on
practical basis and springs from
fear that as result of this decision
the public will not be protected ade-
Quately from persons who have COM
mitted crimes and who may well COM
init them again, but who now will be
incarcerated neither in jails nor in
hospitals. There are at least three
answers to this point.
!. In the State of New Hampshire
where a similar decision has been in
force for some time no bad results
have occurred.
2. The danger that person who Is
adjudged innocent of crime on the
basis of insanity viii be freed from
hospital more speedily than from a
jail is small If hospital administrative
policies are inadequate in this respect,
then we should turn our attention to
them.
3. The danger to the public from
the release of persons with criminal
tendencies from hospitals and jails and
courts is a danger which should be
dealt with as such. It is probably
largely an administrative problem, but
it should indeed have the attention of
the legal and psychiatric professions
as well as Of others who are concerned