Ball, John C.

English

University of Kentucky

Kentucky Law JournalVolume 56 | Issue 3 Article 101968Criminal Responsibility and Mental Disease by C.R. JefferyJohn C. BallNational Institute of Mental Health Addiction Research CenterFollow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kljRight click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefitsyou.This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky LawJournal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact UKnowledge@lsv.uky.edu.Recommended CitationBall, John C. (1968) "Criminal Responsibility and Mental Disease by C. R. Jeffery," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 56 : Iss. 3 , Article 10.Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol56/iss3/10BOOK BEvmwsCRmIMNAL BEsPONsIBILTrY AND MErAL DIsEAsE. By C. R. Jeffery.Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1967. Pp. 324. $11.00.Criminal Responsibility and Mental Disease is a provocative book.It is rich in case material, reports of courtroom behavior, and a dis-cussion of the relationship of law, psychiatry, and the social sciencesto mental disease.In the first half of the volume, Professor Jeffery considers theDurham rule1 with respect to legal precedents, present interpretations,and behavioral outcome. He notes that, "The Durham rule broadenedthe meaning of insanity so that, within a legal framework, non-psychotic psychopathology could be considered as insanity."2' Thus,the Durham decision of 1954, "extends the meaning of insanity toinclude any mental disease or mental defect."3In order to investigate the consequences of Durham, a researchproject was undertaken in the District of Columbia. This involved"introducing an insanity plea for a condition less than psychotic, suchas alcoholism, homosexuality, drug addiction, or sociopathy" andthen analyzing the effects upon the government, defense counsel,psychiatrists, the bench, jurors, and the defendant. More than twentycases involving the insanity plea were introduced and studied. As apart of the project, thirty-six interviews with psychiatrists and twenty-six interviews with lawyers were conducted.The research findings demonstrated that the lawyers and psy-chiatrists were divided as to the utility of the Durham rule. Most ofthose interviewed found fault with that decision. In particular, dif-ficulty was encountered within both professional groups in definingmental disease. Jeffery found that judges generally oppose any ex-tension of mental illness as a defense of crime, while counsel mayfavor its utilization as a means of preventing the punishment of thedefendant. Of particular significance was the finding that the testi-mony of defense-minded psychiatrists and government-biased psy-chiatrists was closely related to their sponsorship. Regarding the in-adequacy of psychiatrists as expert witnesses, the author states: "Thepsychiatrist is placed in an impossible situation so long as he has totestify as an expert witness for [either] the government or for thedefense."4Finally, with regard to Durham and its relationship to criminalbehavior, general conclusions and recommendations are advanced:1 United States v. Durham, 214 F. 2d 862 (D. C. Cir. 1954).2C. JEFFERY, CRImiNAL R.EPoNsiBIrY AND MENTAL DSEA E 17 (1967).3 Id. at 42.4 Id. at 27.1968]KENTUcKY LAw JOURNALVWe do not know how to cure or treat antisocial behavior, though theDurham rule assumes that such knowledge exists. The Durham rule doesnot reform the criminal nor protect society.Serious due process issues are raised by the Durham rule.The insanity defense defines crime as a medical problem; it thereforeignores the fact that crime is a social problem, not a medical problem.5The second half of Professor Jeffery's book consists of a moregeneral dissertation on criminal behavior and mental disease as pre-sented by psychological and sociological theorists. He notes that dif-fering opinions exist as to what constitutes mental disease; the authorbelieves that crime is not caused by mental illness. Rather, Jefferyviews crime as behavior which is learned.Indeed, the book was provocative. It prompted this reviewer toask: Is not the proper province of law, the courtroom? As surgerytakes place in a specialized hospital setting, and teaching essentiallyremains a structured process undertaken in a controlled institution(not without creating another set of problems), so the practice ofcriminal law seems to be a definite and restricted process-to de-termine the guilt or innocence of particular persons who happen tobe brought before the court.The broader philosophical and empirical questions of correctingthe wrong of society, providing medical treatment for prisoners andcitizens, establishing the efficacy of particular laws, or unraveling thereasons why some persons in every society commit criminal acts, alltranscend the law, although they may be related to it. This is not tosay that scientific studies of the law should not be undertaken. Quitethe contrary. Professor Jefferey has certainly shown that such in-vestigations are feasible and productive. But the law is not science;it does not employ the scientific method. It seems, therefore, thatstudies of criminal behavior will of necessity transcend the legal frame-work and be organized around the methods and concepts of thedeveloping behavioral sciences.John C. Ball, Ph. D.Chief, Sociology UnitNational Institute of Mental HealthAddiction Research CenterLexington, Kentucky5 Id. at 292-93.[VCOL 56,

Criminal Responsibility and Mental Disease by C. R. Jeffery

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2866&amp;context=klj

Criminal Responsibility and Mental Disease by C. R. Jeffery

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Kentucky