NCJ Number
13391
Date Published
1965
Length
235 pages
Annotation
A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE M'NAGHTON RULE AND THE DURHAM RULE AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THEIR UTILIZATION IN REGARD TO CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY, EXCULPATION, AND SENTENCING OF MENTALLY DISTURBED OFFENDERS.
Abstract
THE CENTRAL DIFFERENCE IN THE EFFECT OF THE RULES IS THAT MORE DEFENDANTS COME WITHIN THE DURHAM RULE (SUFFERING FROM MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT THAT CAUSED THEM TO COMMIT CRIME) THAN M'NAGHTEN (SO MENTALLY DISEASED AS NOT TO KNOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING OR THAT IT WAS WRONG); THAT IS, MORE MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE ARE EXCULPATED UNDER DURHAM. IT HAS BEEN ASSERTED THAT, IN THIS REGARD, DURHAM IS A SOUNDER RULE ETHICALLY. THE DURHAM RULE, IT IS ALSO SAID, FACILITATES THE MORE EFFECTIVE USE OF PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY WHEN THE DEFENSE OF INSANITY IS RAISED. THESE WOULD SEEM TO BE DESIRABLE ADVANTAGES. IF THEY WERE, IN FACT, THE TRUE RESULTS, THEY WOULD REFLECT A WORTHY REFORM. BUT THESE POINTS ARE NOT WELL TAKEN. IN EFFECT-AND, WHEN CLOSELY EXAMINED IN THEORY--DURHAM DOES NOT ACHIEVE ITS CLAIMS. FURTHER, PURSUING A NEW FOCUS, PARTICULARLY A SENTENCING REFORM, WE ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION THAT M'NAGHTEN IS A BETTER RULE TO BE APPLIED ON THE TRIAL AND THAT DURHAM IS A RULE BETTER APPLIED AT THE POINT OF SENTENCING. UNDER DURHAM, IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OR IN ANY JURISDICTION IN WHICH THE DEFENSE OF INSANITY, IF ESTABLISHED, RESULTS IN AN INDETERMINATE COMMITMENT TO A MENTAL HOSPITAL, A DEFENDANT WHO IS MENTALLY ILL BUT LIKELY TO BE SENTENCED TO A TERM OF A FEW YEARS AT MOST WILL NOT USUALLY BRING FORWARD THE DEFENSE OF MENTAL ILLNESS, SINCE THE PENAL DISPOSITION WOULD LIKELY BE LESS PUNITIVE THAN THE INDETERMINE COMMITMENT. IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEFENDANT WILL THEREFORE BE SUPPRESSED. HOWEVER, IN A JURISDICTION WITH THE MODEL SENTENCING ACT AND WITH M'NAGHTEN, THERE WOULD BE NO BARRIER TO THE DEFENSE'S HONESTLY BRINGING FORWARD THE DEFENDANT'S MENTAL CONDITION. IF THE DEFENDANT WAS CATEGORIZED AS A NONDANGEROUS OFFENDER, HIS TERM WOULD AT THE MOST BE FIVE YEARS AND HE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE. IF HE WAS A DANGEROUS OFFENDER--THAT IS, IF HE HAD COMMITTED A CRIME DANGEROUS TO THE PERSON AND WAS FOUND TO BE SUFFERING FROM A SEVERE PERSONALITY DISORDER-THE QUESTION OF HIS MENTAL CONDITION WOULD NOT BE ONE FOR TECHNICAL DEBATE UNDER THE RESTRICTIVE RULES OF A TRIAL. THE JUDGE OR PROSECUTOR WOULD CALL FOR A DIAGNOSTIC WORKUP AND THE DEFENSE COULD SERVE ITS INTEREST BEST BY A FULL EXPOSURE OF HIS CONDITION. ALL OF THIS WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO SOUNDER, INDIVIDUALIZED SENTENCING. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)