Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-05-22
Court Mental Clinic?


In view Of the recent con-
fusion regarding psychiatric
testimony in the courts /
would offer the following
suggestions. They are based
on several years experience
in mental hospitals and ex-
tensive personal experience
with both public and private
agencies in mental health.
Judging from the infor-
nation in the newspapers,
psychiatric testimony has
reached the point where even
a jury of qualified physicians.
without psychiatric oriental
ton, could not hope to reach
a logical decision. This is a
problem which involves not
only the basic concept of fair
play and justice, but also
serious problems in law and
science.
I would suggest that the
courts consider the follow
ing:
% Appoint two quail
fed psychiatrists who are
certified by the American
Board and possessed Of at
least 10 years experience in
State or public mental hos
pitfalls.
90 Appoint these men for
life in the same manner that
we appoint Federal judges,
in order that they may be
removed from all political or
personal pressure.
90 Give these men a
staff of qualified medical
psychologists and social
workers, each possessed Of
at least 10 years experience
in a public mental hospital.
"a Make it routine that
any person accused of a ma
jor crime, such as homicide,
rape or armed robbery, be ex-
amined by these experts
upon indictment.
go Require that the ex-
perts do an independent ex-
animation and submit an in
dependent opinion to the
courts as to the defendants
mental condition to stand
trial, and that this opinion
be accepted by all concerned
as the final decision.
60 Require that these ex-
perts give their opinions on
the basis of common knowl-
edge in psychiatry. That is,
if, in their opinion, the de-
PENDANT would be a fit SUBJ
ject for commitment if he
were not accused of a crime
he is not fit to stand trial.
If he would not be a fit
subject for commitment, he
is able to defend himself.
Cd If these two experts
disagree, let the court order
the Washington Psychiatric
Association to appoint a
third qualified expert to ex-
anime the defendant and let
the majority rule.
The present apparent pol
icy is inaccurate. Anyone
familiar with basic problems
of mental health knows that
mental illness is only a
matter of degree and that
many people functioning in
our society every day could,
in all sincerity, be called
mentally i'll from the stand.
Mental illness is very COM
mon and unless it is accom-
panied by decisions, hallu-
cinations or compulsive be-
havior, it is not. in common
sense, grounds for considera-
ton by the courts as insanity
in the legal sense. The
present situation of experts
testifying against each other
while both are sincere is in
the final analysis chaos. To
present confusing psychiatric
testimony and terms to a lay
jury is not only poor law but
extremely invalid psychology.
The suggested plan would
not replace the jury in de-
Gliding matters Of fact. 1t
would, on the other hand,
present solid facts to the jury
for its consideration against
the background of the facts
which it will hear in evil
dence. 1t would protect the
defendant by removing from
the emotional area Of the
courtroom a subject which is
widely misunderstood and
charged with prejudice on
both sides. 1t would also en-
able his counsel to evaluate
the defense effectively, and
not waste time on a defense
which is inaccurate. 1t would
not be an attempt to rail-
road" anyone. 1t might give
some people the defense Of
insanity when it was never
considered by their cI,unsel
Yet, in the final analysis