Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-03-21
Durham Rule
End Predicted
byProfessor

Appeals here some day win |
scrap its 1854 Durham rule for
criminal insanity and adopt the |
more limited rule suggested by
Durham opponents. Prof. Her
bert Wechsler of the Columbia |
University Law School pre-
dicted last night during q panel
discussion Of insanity as q de-
Tense in criminal cases."
The Durham rule in question
last night says q defendant in
q trial must be found not guilty |
by reason of insanity where
this defense Is raised if the
Jury finds the crime was q !
product Of q mental disease orr
defect suffered by the accused.
Mr.. Weschler brought up the
two main criticisms made Of
this rule by panel members
its failure to define the limits |
Of disease or defect" and to
explain what is meant byI
product"
Principle Called Vague
The Columbia University pro-
lessor said the Durham rule
worries him because $50 vague
q principle determines so i'm
portant a question" He pre-
dicted that the local appellate
court, faced with Nationwide
criticism of the Durham rule.
will swing over to the legal in
sanity test proposed by the Am
erican Law Institute.
This says a person is not re-
eponsible for criminal conduct
If he lacked Substantial capae-
ity" either to appreciate the
criminality Of his conduct or
conform to the law at the time
Of his crime.
United States Attorney Oliver
Gasch and the Rev. s. Obey
Cutler, who is with a New York |
State commission studying |
criminal insanity. also held out |
for the Institute rule as op-
posed to the Durham rule.
Jurors Held Confused
Mr.. Gasch said he feels that
the ordinary juryman cannot
understand the Durham rule.
zone thing most jurymen
know about is conduct that
meets the standards Of a COM
munity." Mr.. Gasch said.
He claimed that the Durham
rule throws that into a scrap !
heap" Father Cutler said the
institute test is 'intelligible
and workable with the ordinary
Jury" He criticized the Dur
ham rule as indicative Of q
"heinous tendency on the part
of some Of our courts toward
judicial lawmaking."
Charles Reich, Washington
attorney, hailed the Durham
rule as an improvement overl
the insanity test that applied
here before 1854. The old test
provided for a verdict Of not
guilty by reason Of insanity in
cases where the defendant did
not know right from wrong and
was impelled BY an irresistible
impulse at the time Of the
crime.
Republication Cases Few
Decrying criticisms here that
the Durham rule has impeded
law enforcement. Mr.. Reich
pointed out that the number
of defendants sent to st. Eliza
beths Hospital-not jail-as q
result of the Durham ruling is
amazingly small" He said
there have been only 40 such
cases.
Senator Erwin, Democrat Of
North Carolina and q former
associate justice Of the North |
Carolina Supreme Court. spoke I
out for retention Of the old
right-wrong tests. He termed
the Durham rule q surrender"
by the courts to the pSychia-
trists and criticized the new /
test Tor failure to define mental .
disease.
He said the old test, which |
applies in every legal juris-
diction except the District and
New Hampshire, allows q jury
to make a judgment in terms
of generally accepted moral
standards.
Representative Heating, Re- !
publican of New York and.
ranking minority member Of
the House Judiciary Commit |
tee, served as moderator for the
panel. He said the law has not
kept pace with psychiatric adj
vances and called for legislative
rather than judicial settlement
of the dispute over a proper
test of criminal insanity.