Reid, John E.

English

Northwestern University Illinois, School of Law: Scholarly Commons

Journal of Criminal Law and CriminologyVolume 33 | Issue 6 Article 101943Police Science Legal Abstracts and NotesJohn E. ReidFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclcPart of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and CriminalJustice CommonsThis Criminology is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted forinclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons.Recommended CitationJohn E. Reid, Police Science Legal Abstracts and Notes, 33 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 490 (1942-1943)POLICE SCIENCE LEGAL ABSTRACTS AND NOTESJohn E. ReidPsychologist's Expert Testimony Regarding the "I. Q." of an AccusedIn a recent issue of the British Journal of Psychology two Englishcourt cases dealing with the expert testimony of a psychologist regardingthe Intelligence Quotient of a person accused of receiving stolen propertywere reported and commented on by John M. Gibbs.1It appears the defendant, together with his brother and brother-in-law,operated a restaurant, but dispensed with the business for the duration of thewar when the brother and brother-in-law were inducted into the Army.Later the defendant was approached by a man who offered to sell a largequantity of meat at 18 s. a tin. The defendant accepted the offer when theprice was reduced to 12 s. and subsequently sold the goods at a profit.A similar transaction was entered into by the defendant with another man,involving the sale of men's clothing, in which the defendant made a largeprofit and stated at the time of the sale that "he knew the stuff was notstraight."The solicitor for the defense alleged the defendant to be mentally deficientand referred him to the Institute for the Scientific Treatment of Delinquencyfor a report on his intelligence.The psychologist who conducted the tests was called as an expert witnessand testified, before a jury, that the defendant had an Intelligence Qu6tientof 47 (imbecile rating) and a mental age of seven years.The prosecution alleges that since the defendant was able to transact twoprofitable business deals he should be classified as one having a shrewd butguilty mind. The defendant was found guilty in one case and not guilty inthe other.With respect to the value of the "I. Q." to legal proceedings, Gibbsstates: "It is not difficult to suggest cases in which an estimate of theintelligence of the person charged, whether child or adult, would assist thejudge and jury or the magistrate in their assessment of the facts of thecase and the degree of guilt of the person charged. The general rule of lawis that a person cannot be convicted in a proceeding of a criminal nature un-less it can be shown he has a guilty mind 'mens rea.' In this instance the'mens rea' is easily established, but in others it must be dependent, in partat least, on the intelligence or comprehension of the accused. The lawaccepts this for it holds that no child under the age of eight years can beguilty of any offense and this in spite of most overwhelming evidence to thecontrary both as to the child's acts and intention. . . . In certain offensessuch as 'receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen' the degreeof intelligence of the accused may well decide whether he should have knownfrom the proved facts that the goods were stolen or whether he could beimposed upon and so receive them in all innocence. In cases where two ormore persons are jointly charged, their respective I. Q. would be of assistancein determining the various roles of such persons and in assessing the differingdegrees of complicity."1 Brit. Jour. of Psychol. 83: 103-112 (Oct. 1942).

Police Science Legal Abstracts and Notes

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3189&amp;context=jclc

Police Science Legal Abstracts and Notes

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Northwestern University Illinois, School of Law: Scholarly Commons