Evening star., 1954-11-16

Is real necessity, such as hotels, etc.
There Is plenty Of parking space Ia
Washington II people were only per-
mitted to use it.
F.M.
Psychiotrist on Durhom Case
While Mr.. Abe Fortas' letter Of Mo-
vember 10 is the precipitating cause Of
this communication, it is not my inten-.
ton to answer" his views, but rather
to make observations from somewhat
different view In the hope that they
will be Of some value In the resolution
OF the recent decision Of the Court Of
Appeals. which Is pregnant with i'm
plications Of the gravest order.
In my opinion, the issues at stake
in the problem, Of which the Dur
ham case is but representative, can
not be settled by psychiatry andlor
the law exclusively. Other disciplines
are needed to throw light on the issues.
The problem should be resolved
through the combined efforts of the
several and diverse groups that COM
pose our society, groups which have a
valid interest in this problem and are
equipped to make q contribution to its
solution.
AS Mr.. Fortas points out, q person
who has been the agent Of a crime is
not held responsible for that crime In
all cases. Circumstances and condi-
tions that impede persons free action
nv @crrv, ,rrNk nHI4 ~, f<s ic11
or abolish his responsibility for the act
In question. This approach to human
acts. much more ancient than the. 14th
century in origin, Is rooted in the
metsphysic Of man that Is peculiar to
western civilization, and one to be de-
Tended at all cost.
The psychiatrist has specialized and
detailed knowledge of one of the sew
eral impediments to free actions, viz,
mental and emotional disorders. It is
worthy of note, in the matter Of spe-
cialized knowledge, that it is only an
intensification of general knowledge.
Thus. a Jury Of responsible citizens can
determine. generally, whether or not
person is insane. This in no way
derogates from the psychiatriSt's irll-
portance as specialist, but rather, the
two degrees of knowledge complement
each other. The psychiatrist, naturally.
is able to discern illness which escapes
the layman. This is precisely the
knowledge which modern psychiatry
has to offer society. A proper under
standing of the precise point at which
psychiatric knowledge impinges on the
legal process of determining persons
responsibility will clarity to great
extent this whole problem.
4 One can infer, from the manner in
which Mr.. Fortas uses words, that the
metaphysical basis from which he
argues is one that does not see man as
rational animal. a person endowed
with freedom of action. He does not
expostulate his metaphysical position,
but his general augmentation betrays
it. No one would question his right to
hold such position. nor can one fail
to perceive that such conception of
man is rather radically divergent from
the traditional metaphysic on which
this Republic is erected. No judgment
is being passed here on the worth or
validity Of either position. Attention
is merely being called to an evident
divergence. Perhaps Mr.. ,Fortas lis
not aware Of the ultimate implications
of his present position. In charity, ]
assume he is not. ].
VI The fright or wrong" principle IS a
necessary conclusion from the tradi-
tional view that man is a free agent;
as q causer of effects, he has some
immanent principle of freedom In
choosing possible courses Of action. The
new principle, as formulated by the
Court of Appeals. would appear to de-
emphasize, if not abolish, this principle
OF freedom, and thus would see human
acts as mere chains OF biologically and
psychically determined causes and
effects.
It is not possible to base such
patiently absurd idea on the findings of
modern psychology. The data dis
covered by psychology are integrated
into a philosophical system by the
scientist, and the conclusions he draws
are not always free Of philosophical
preconceptions. just as the new find-
ings of psychology are seen as proof"
that man is not free agent, others.
whose netaphysic is broad enough to
allow freedom In the world, see the
new findings as confirmation on. the
scientific level of what has always been
maintained in realistic and existen-
tialistic metaphysic of man. This con-
troversy has to be settled in the
metaphysical arena; it is evident that
1t is not amenable to solution in the
psychological theater.
Thus, Mr.. Fortas' tendency to speak
of psychiatrists as If they all agreed on
the fundamental questions raised by
dynamic psychology Is rather am
bilious and optimistic. Mr.. Fortas Is
speaking, lii reality. from rather
limited. and \, in itself. controversial.
psychiatric position. In fairness to the
laity. this must be made clear.
Nothing that has been discovered by
modern psychology and psychiatry has
made obsolete the traditionally held
and metaphysically certain principles
that permeate our civilization. Those
who think to the contrary should make
certain that they understand those