Evening star., 1954-11-20
Monte Durhum Case

At the likely risk Of ending up vainly
defending my own sanity, would like
to intrude my presumption in the
learned debate between The Star and
Abe Fortas. With enviable erudition
Mr.. Fortas chides The Star for an al
legged "basic misunderstanding" of the
Court Of Appeals new definition OF in
sanity poStulated in the Mont Durham
case. In reading The Stars thoughtful
editorial on the change of the time
element of criminal insanity from the
momentary duration of an irresistible
impulse to include the whole CESSATION
period of an antisocial act allegedly re-
sulting from mental disease or defect, ]
shared The Stars misgiyings of the
rulings sufhciency to protect society
from the predatory. 1t seemed the court
had packaged allegations of criminal
insanity like the illegitimate pregnancies
of irresponsible mental detectives. While
1t decried the illegitimate and unloved
progeny. there were no bona fide effec-
tive measures to enjoin the tragic and
malignant fertility of the irresponsible.
It leaves society holding both horns Of
an unresolyed dilemma. We grant that
in theory the ruling proposes protective
custody of the mental defective until
legally declared cured. But the reality
Is to the contrary. After reading the
erudite letters of Mr.. Fortas, think
can diagnose the reason for The Stars
doubling Thomas attitude: The Star
really fears the lawyer rather than the
law.
Unlike other learned professions, the
lawyer is permitted wide moral and
ethical arf1bivalence in exercising his
forensic art. He may make his reputa-
tion convicting criminals as public
prosecutor and then proceed to make
his fortune reversing the verdictS when
he leaves public Office. Society would
frown upon the clergyman who de-
Tended the devil or the doctor who
spreads contagion and disease. But it
has nothing but acclaim for the in
genious lawyer who can free a guilty
client. With honest lawyers, this new
definition Of insanity will extend the
domain of the law as the vigilant pro-
tector of the weak, the wretched and
the helpless. But the unprincipled
mouthpiece Of the predatory has had
his moral and ethical ambivalence arbi-
trarily extended and validated until it
now imperils the safety and security of
society. think, Mr.. Fortas. The Star
really fears the lawyer rather than the
law and the basic misunderstanding is
on the part of those who believe law
is for lawyers instead of for the pro-
lection of society
Thomas E.. MattingIy, MD.
The Stars exchange with Abe Fortas
on the Monte Durham case clearly re-
veals one of your few serious editorial
blind spots.
You hold that there are two entirely
different kinds of people. good citi-
zens" and criminals" Criminals are
inherently bad" and always threaten
good citizens just as dogs always
threaten cats. cats threaten mice, etc.
Society maintains courts, prosecutors
and police to catch criminals and pun
ish them for the trouble they cause or,
better, to send them away somewhere
so they can't bother good citizens at
all. Ideally, perhaps, if it weren't for :
all the coddlers and theorists and do
gooders. we could just exterminate the
criminals and be done with it.
It follows that any tempering of the
relentlessness of vindictiveness of law
enforcement must be viewed with grave
alarm; whatever makes criminal prose-
cutionS more fearsome, on the other
hand. will tend to push next months
crime statistics down a percentage
point or two and must therefore be
supported.
Consistently with this, The Star has
agitated for longer, tougher sentences
and new laws reviving the cruel ar
chaism of mandatory minimums. Peri
odlcally. sentencing judges who attempt
to distinguish between justice and the
lash come in for excoriation in your
columns. You. claim-and deserve
major credit for last years debacle
which got a tough narcotics-addict law
on the books before any one seriously
considered what was to be done with
the poor wretches to be deprived of
their liberty under it. And you persis-
tently warn against leniency in dealing
with hardened criminals" merely be-
cause they happen also to be children.
Your philosophy is precisely the
philosophy underlying the fright and
test our Court of Appeals, per-
suaded by Mr.. Fortas. has modified in
the Durham case. The test was full
half-century outmoded. So is your
fearful defense of it.
Rufus King.
In dragging metaphysics" into your
controversy with Abe Fortas on the
Durham Case, "Psychiatrist" does not
speak as psychiatrist, but as an OBJ
scurantist. failed to observe any ten
dency by Mr.. Fortas ito speak of psy-
chiatrists as if they all agreed on the
fundamental questions raised by dy-
manic psychology" Both he and you
were properly concerned with a legal
question, and ready to leave psychiatric
controversy to the psychiatrists. There
was nothing against any metaphysic
"broad enough to allow freedom in the
world" But we must cope with the
empirical fact that sick men are not
as free as healthy men. This is a prob
lem which we must deal with before