Review of Criminal Responsibility and Mental Disease.

1968 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 314-314
Author(s):  
A. A. Hartman
1894 ◽  
Vol 40 (168) ◽  
pp. 63-64

The increasing prevalence of suicide in this country is a phenomenon of grave social importance. Many of its causes, doubtless, lie beyond the range of either legislative or administrative remedies. We cannot avert the influence of commercial depression or religious excitement or alter the thousand and one climatic, telluric, and social conditions which lead men to take away their own lives. Nor can we return to the drastic policy of earlier days, when the suicide was buried at midnight in the king's highway with a stake through his body, and without the rites of Christian sepulture. But two deterrents might be tried. In the first place, instead of treating attempted felo de se as attempted murder, it might, in accordance with Sir James Stephen's suggestion, be regarded only as a secondary offence, punishable by secondary punishment. Again—and the prospect held out by the Death Certification Committee's report, of fresh legislation in our “crowner's quest law,” gives to this point an immediate interest—coroners' juries ought not to be permitted to return, nor should coroners be allowed to receive verdicts of “temporary insanity” in cases where not a vestige of evidence of mental disease in the legal sense of the term was adduced. The amiable humanity which inspires such verdicts is worthy of some respect, but its consequences are bad, and further manifestations of this weak disregard of duty ought to be prohibited by law. It may well enough be that the average felo de se is not able fully to appreciate either “The Suicide's Argument” or “Nature's Answer” to it, at the time when he lays violent hands on himself. But this is not what the law means, or ought to mean, by insanity; and we see no reason whatever why the mental state of suicides should not be determined by the criteria which govern the question of criminal responsibility in other cases. We deplore this weak sentimentality.


1896 ◽  
Vol 42 (177) ◽  
pp. 473-474

The name of the late Lord Blackburn has few recollections of a medico-legal character associated with it. But his lordship once rendered a service to the science of medical jurisprudence which ought not to be forgotten. He was trying a woman on a charge of attempted murder. She clearly knew the difference of right from wrong and the character of her act, and if the judge had charged the jury according to the letter of the answers in McNaghten's case, she would inevitably have been convicted. But Lord Blackburn, to use his own language, “felt it impossible to say that she should be punished,” and so he told the jury that while McNaghten's case supplied the general rule, there were exceptions to it. The jury at once acted on the hint by acquitting the prisoner on the ground of insanity. Many of our judges would not hesitate nowadays to treat the orthodox test of criminal responsibility in mental disease with equal freedom. But Lord Blackburn's “departure” was taken about a quarter of a century ago, when the authority of McNaghten's case was far more unchallenged than it is at the present day.


1945 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 677
Author(s):  
Jerome Hall

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
John P. A. Ioannidis

AbstractNeurobiology-based interventions for mental diseases and searches for useful biomarkers of treatment response have largely failed. Clinical trials should assess interventions related to environmental and social stressors, with long-term follow-up; social rather than biological endpoints; personalized outcomes; and suitable cluster, adaptive, and n-of-1 designs. Labor, education, financial, and other social/political decisions should be evaluated for their impacts on mental disease.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document