Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T14:04:21.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Mental Experts and Criminal Responsibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2018

Extract

I wish in the first instance to lay clearly down what are the objects to be attained in regard to alleged insanity in criminal cases; in the second place I shall speak of what is the course pursued in England to reach those ends, and point out its inadequacy and inconvenience; and, thirdly, I shall suggest certain modifications, or rather radical changes in our present system, which I submit will act beneficially in securing the objects I lay down as those we ought to have in view. I am not, of course, speaking here of the duties of the Expert; his rôle is much more limited in its range; but I am placing myself in the position of one who heartily desires to answer the question: Can the present method of ascertaining Criminal Responsibility in our Courts of Law be improved ?

Type
Part I.—Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1882 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* 39 and 40 Geo. III., cap. 94, s. 2.Google Scholar
* Archbold says, “If the jury find insanity, that will preclude the necessity of further proceedings, but if the prosecution does not bring proof of his state of mind, the judge will endeavour to ascertain it from the officers of the prison and from medical evidence, and, if necessary, postpone the trial. Reg. v. Davies, 6 Cox CO., 326.” P. 613, Ed. 1877.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.