Evening star., 1962-10-31
Natural Law

LII 1907 III GllG OuI I1d114
case the u. S. Court of APP
peals for the District Of
Columbia said that the
fright and wrong" test Of
criminal responsibility is in
adequate. We must deter
mine if the accused has a
mental defect or mental
disease, but the Court did
not define either term. 1t
simply sought to distinguish
disease from defect"
Now, in the Mcdonald
case of October 8, 1862, the
Court gives a judicial defini-
tion. 1t said:
%. Our purpose now is
to make it very clear that
neither the court nor the
jury is bound by ad hoe
definitions or conclusions as
to what experts state is a
disease or defect. What
psychiatrists may consider a
mental disease or defect for
clinical purposes, where their
concern is treatment, may or
may not be the same as
mental disease or defect for
the jury's purpose in deter
mining criminal responsible
lity. Consequently, for that
purpose the jury should be
told that a mental disease or
defect includes any abnormal
condition of the mind which
substantially impairs behavior
controls. Thus the jury would
consider testimony concern
ing the development, adap-
tation and functioning OF
these processes and controls.
I'VE emphasize that, since
the question of whether the
defendant has a disease or
defect is ultimately for the
triers of fact, obviously its re-
solution cannot be controlled
by expert opinion. The jury
must determine for itself,
from all the testimony, lay
and expert, whether the ma
ture and degree of the dis
ability are sufficient to es-
tablish a mental disease or
defect as we have now defined
those terms. What we have
said, however, should in no
way be construed to limit the
latitude of expert testimony"
If you asked a prospective
juryman what this means he
would probably say: We'll, I
think it means that If the &C
cused acted abnormally, diff
ferent from other persons,
then he would have a mental
disease or defect" Then if you
remarked that "every person
who commits murder, man
slaughter, robbery, rape, ct al.
is abnormal; that no normal
person. does these things" he
would probably reply: That's
right. If I am called to serve
on a jury I will do the best I
can. The court tells me that it
is for me to decide and not
rely on expert testimony; that
I am the trier Of the facts. I
will watch the accused If he
takes the stand; how he ans
wers questions and whether
he is malingering. do not
believe that psychiatristS can
help me very much. Because,
during the past eight years
since the Durham decision the
ball has been given to them to
carry and they have dismally
fumbled it and thrown it back
to the jury. So, we get right
back to where we started. It
is UP to us IL men to decide
and we must use our best
judgment. AS rational human
beings we must ask the ques-
ton Did the accused know
what he was doing?' Man has
an Unborn notion of right and
wrong. Try as you may you
cannot get away from the ma
tural law. It is the absolute.
It is the Interchangeable. 1t is
the beaten path which is the
safest. The right and wrong
test of criminal responsible
ity is still with us, call it what
you may"
Cicero said that there is in
fact a true law-namely, right
reason-which is in accord
ance with nature, applies to
all men, and is Interchangeable
and eternal"
William Francis Mcdonnell.