Evening star., 1954-10-03
Lunucy
Continued From First PageJ

|
resistible impulse" tests. Now a
jury can find defendant not
guilty If it believes he suffered
a mental disease or mental de-
feet that caused him to commit
the crime.
2. The Kenneth Gunther case.
In the past, If a defendant was
judged mentally incompetent to
stand trial, he was committed to
a mental hospital, where he re-
manned until the superintendent
wrote the court that he was now
mentally fit for trial. Then the
case went to trial. Now, the cer-
tificate from the superintendent
is not enough. The judge has to
call the psychiatrists into court
and hold anothe rhearing to
determine if the defendant is
mentally fit for trial.
3. The Michael Contee, jr.,
case. This backs up the Gunther
case.
4. The James Wear case. In
the past, 1t was UP to the judge
I to decide whether there were
reasonable grounds to believe
the accused might be mentally
incompetent to stand trial and
therefore should have a mental
examination. Now. the Judge has
no such discretion. The judge
must grant requests for mental
examinations as long as they are,
not frivolous and are not made
in bad faith. And the request
can come at any time-even in.
the middle of a trial.
Those who favor the Durham
decision contend that juries will
now get the full facts and in
terpretations from psychiatrists
so they will have true picture
Of the mental state of the man
on trial.
Those who fear for the future
of law enforcement agrue that
juries will be so confused by
the amount of evidence dropped
in their laps and the lack of
signposts to guide them that
some criminals will walk out un-
punished.
They-fear, too, that the COM
bined effect of the Durham de-
cision with the decisions in the
Gunther. Contee and Wear
cases will result in such a bur-
den on already overworked
court psychiatrists that malin-
gerers will be able to develop
enough mental history-on pa
per-to convince juries of their
insanity.
Protection for Society.
Opponents also argue that be-
cause of the Wear decision par
ticularly. defendants will find
it much easier to get a mental
examination and inevitably
more of them will wind up in
st. Elizabeths Hospital as men,
tally incompetent to stand trial.
Even if psychiatrists, keeping a
man under 24-hour observation
at st. Elizabeths, suspect mall
lingering and send him back in
minimum time, the man still
has a history of being confined
in st. Elizabeths. Opponents
argue that juries will believe
there's something wrong with
the man or else why would he
have been in st. Elizabeths?
The question Mr.. Rover wants
considered by the Council on
Law Enforcement gets down to
this:
In extending the protection of
modern psychiatric knowledge
to the mentally i'll who commit
crimes, what protection should
be extended to society? What
measures should follow the de-
cisions to give insurance against
malingering and escapes from
punishment while carrying out
the edicts of the Court of Ap-
peals?
Some legal authorities here
would like Congress to pass a
law defining insanity. Directors
to that proposal argue that it's
not only impossible to write such
q definition covering all cases
but also it would be too infiexible
for future advances. Proponents