Evening star., 1954-11-24
The Durhur,, Case

AS q lawyer ! have read with deep
interest the opinions Of the Circuit
Court OF Appeals for the District of
Columbia In the Durham and Stewart
cases, as the court. endeavored to de-
velop legal principles which are In
accord with modern psychatric insight
into human behavior. I have also read
with much interest editorials appearing
In your newspaper. letters to the editor,
etc. ennnciating considerable opposi-
. tion TO the new rules Of the court af-
fecting criminal responsibility. In ad-
dition, ! have participated In discus
sions among lawyers and psychiatrists
with respect to this matter.
As human being am constantly
amazed at the school OF thought that
wants to rule out the unconscious mo-
tivation In human behavior. Whether
we like It or not, man is the instrument
Of his emotions; they are q compelling
force. often more potent than reason
or the cognitive powers. In debating
human actions.
All of lis who are not frankly psy-
chotic know the difference between
right and wrong. and yet occasionally
in daily life we commit illegal acts.
Fortunately most of our infractions Of
law consist Of minor violations which
are permitted in our society and are
thus In keeping with reality. Many,
however, are criminal acts Of such con-
sequence to society that they cannot be
allowed to pass unnoticed. Thus, we
reach the question raised in the DUR
HroSTA - a.
be done with the offenders?
Most criminal offenders know full
well that they are doing wrong and are
acting under no Irresistible impulse"
The fellow who has been In Jail i've
or six times for forging checks or for
embezzling company funds is person
out Of contact with reality and not
capable Of adjusting himself to the
rights Of other human beings. He knows
1t Is wrong to forge checks or to en-
bezzle: he can't help it any more than
the pyromaniac can help setting fires
or the sex pervert can avoid illegal acts.
These are sick people who need the
therapy that goes along with treatment
In q special institution. Society gains
nothing by sending such persons to the
penitentiary, where therapeutic meas
ures are unavailable, and permitting
their discharge after fixed sentences
when they are free to resume the same
course OF conduct all over again. Ac-
tually. the interests OF the public would
be better served by the commitment
OF criminals who are found upon psy-
chiatric examination to be suffering
from serious mental illnesses to special
facilities for treatment, there to stay
until they are. capable of living freely
IN society without endangering the
welfare OF their fellow men.
] submit that all the Durham and
related cases mean is that our courts
are now required to take a realistic
view Of psychiatric knowledge, to per-
NIT the pSychiatriSt to describe in terms
which have meaning for him the con-
dition Of the patient whom he has
examined. without forcing him to at
his findings into the rigid legal con-
cepts OF "right-wrong" and Irresistible
impulse" or requiring him to pass
moral Judgment upon fellow human
being whom he may regard as serious
ly Ill person.
Psychiatry has moved along and the
law must keep pace with its discoveries.
We ought not to be satisfied with rules
or law simply because they are
hundred years old or because they are
susceptible Of concise expression. we
should be satisfied with legal precents
only when they reflect the realities Of
our civilization and its values and
Wnen they promote justice. In my
opinion, the new rules meet these fun
damental tests.
Frank s. Ketcham.
As practicing psychiatrist, have
followed with considerable interest the
exchange of letters and editorials in
the columns Of The Star on the Dur
ham case. The recent letter of "psy-
chiatrist" sets forth a particular point
of view but not one which represents,
I believe, the majority opinion of the
psychiatric community.
"Psychiatrist" employs as his cri-
terion of the suitability of legal test
for mental responsibility in criminal
cases whether 1t conforms to q .partic-
ular theologico- philosophical precon-
SSPvAoAAs A0VA1C4 t1ldA IGiylklS OH The
empiric, pragmatic methods Of science.
In accordance with the preconception
he seems to deity the right or wrong
principle In spite of the fact that this
test has failed entirely to be satisfac-
tory. and has led to chaos Of cross
purposes and lack of communication be-
tween jurists and psychiatrists.
No one knows how well the new
principle enunciated In the Durham
case will work out when tested through
the courts over reasonable period of
time. These are very difficult problems
and 1t is unlikely that any absolute
answers to them will be found. At
least the Durham rule will afford psy-
chiatrists an opportunity to deal with
matters within their sphere of COM
potency rather than set them up as
mind readers and judges of morals.
believe 1t will eliminate q good deal
Of the kind Of hedging. guessing testi-
mony which is itself clearly immoral
since it falsely implies a degree Of