BOOK REVIEW

Pages05

LAWYERS, PSYCHIATRISTS, ASD CRIMINAL LAW. COOPERATION

OR CHAOS'

Huckabee, Harlow hf. * I, L ~ ~ y e r s , Psychiatrzsts, and Crirnlnal

Law: Cooperation or Chaos. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1980. Pages: xiv, 203, Price: $16 Publlsher's address: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 301-327 East Lawrence Are-nue, Springfield, IL 62717.

Rewewad by .Majoi Sumti W Yc.~laki~i-"*

The headnote to a 1979 article in C.S S e u nnd World Report entitied "Behind Growing Outrage Over Insanity Pleas" queries whether or not a psychiatric defense is an all-too.easy out for those accused of shocking crimes. Mentioning the highly publicized trials of former San Francisco supervisor Dan m i t e and Chicago mass murderer John Wayne Gacy, the article notes growing public concern that "People are using a plea of insanity to get away with murder."'

The crimes, however, include those other than murder, and psy-chiatric defenses today are not limited to lnsanlty pleas. Over the

*The opinions and eanelutronr preaenfed I" this book r e ~ ~ e ~ , , and I" the book lr- ielf, are thole of the authors and do not necesbsrilg represent the i ~ r s

of The

Judge Advocate General's School. the Department of the Army. or any other poi-ernmental agency.**Attorney at law A.E.. 1945. Hariard Unnersry, Cambridge, MS.

J.D , 1951,

Georgetown Uniiersity, Wnshmgran. D C Lieutenant Colonel. JAGC. CSAR Ire tiredl**-Judge Advaeafs GenersPs Carpa. E.S Army Reserve. Associated wfh the law firm of Mustisn, Parker. Tavenner, and Buford, of Richmond, V~~ginia

B.A ,

1961, Trinity College. .I D..

1969, George Washington Cmversitg: 11 L &T , 1980,

Marshall-Wythe School of Law, College of William and Mary, Wilhamsburg, Va. 'Behind Giowng Outrage Oiei insonily Pleas, U S News and Uiorld Repart, May 1, 1919, at 41 (hereinafter. Biiiind G~owing Outrage).

last half century or so, advances m the fields of psychiatry have en-couraged numerous courts and legislatures to adopt definitions of legal insanity which are far broader and leas precise than the simple nght-wrong test which has been utilized for centuries both in Britain and the United State5.l Under the rules that currently em-with marked lack of uniformity among the states and nithin the federal system-psychiatric defenses are pleaded by defendant8 accused of various crimes ranging from bank robbery to tax era-sion. They are utilized not only to aroid criminal responsibility altogether, but also to introduce testimony tending to show diminished capacity or inability of the accused to form specific intent. or to avoid standing trial, or a combination of these alternatives depending on the jurisdiction and the elements of the offense.

Public confusion is underatandable More critical, and a basic problem of criminal l a y hawerer, is the confusion, distrust and conflict that exists between the legal and medical professions and among their members on the question of mental responsibility.

The nature af this problem is considered in detail and from many points of vieis- in a new book entitled Lau,yers. Psyehiatnsts anda1 Lni~, Cooperation o? Ciiaosl The author, Harlou- M.Huckabee, defines ,M'Saghten and the three other major rerponsibiiity teste governing the traditional Insanity defense and explains the gradual liberalization of .?h'.Vaghten and it8 progeny by drawing from a \ride range of opinions, both medical and legal. His thesis is that for the past twenty-fire years the relationship between criminal law and psychiatry has deteriorated to the paint of chaos. This is attributable to several factors, such as non-umformny of standards among the jurisdictions, the treatment orientation of psychiatrists, the natural tension between defense and prosecution, and so forth The chaos will continue unless some effort is made to formulate standards or guidelines that are compatible nith both legal concepts and psychiatric principles.

Mr Huekabee suppests no substantive solution--"ideal standard" by which jurists and psychiatrists can determine who ir too mentally impaired to be found responsible. to form intent, or to stand trial. Rather, he suggests creation of a forum in which this might be ac- *The rule IS le. a?f in M'X8gifen'i Case. LO Cark and Fin zoo. I

Eng Rep 711722 '18433)151

complished, painting out that appropriate standards and guidelines will never be formulated without combined and continuing efforts by both the legal and medical professions.

Not everyone believes that there is a problem sufficiently grave to warrant a uniiersal review of existing law. On at least two re-cent occasions, Joseph H. Vargyas, director of the American Bar Association's Commission on the Mentally Disabled, has indicated that insanity is asserted in less than one percent of all felony indictments The author challenges this figure in his preface, however, and suggem that psychiatrists may be more utilized than generally realized. He suggests that statistics should be developed not only as to insanity pleas, but also as to use of defenses related to diminished capacity and to competency to stand trial, and as to decisions against prosecution based on mental disorders, made by administrative and investigative agencies and by prosecuting attorneys.

Statistics notwithstanding, however, for those n ho are curiaus about the current status of psychiatric defenses,-which, a8 Mr. Huckabee points out, include more than the traditional insanity plea-his brief but camprehensire volume provides a sufficient variety of opinions and theories to enable readers to see the problems and to reach an informed opinion as to what should be done to solve them.

Mr. Huekabee has been involved with the problems of Ian and psychiatry far oyer a quarter of a century. His interest in the effect of mental illness on crimmal responsibility commenced in 1953 u,hen, as a defense attorney in the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps, he was called to defend the 192 court-martial of Sergeant Maurice L. Schick. This wa8 an early case in which the effect of di. minished capacity an mens ea, or intent, was discussed on appeal.' In conjunction with that case, Mr. Huckabee became acquainted with several psychiatrists nho at that time espoused the "determinist" theory of human behavior, a paint of view u.hieh rejects the traditional legal assumption that man chooses between good and evil,

aEBehmd Groutno Outrogr at 42; Lami Bodme, Rx FouohtforP1ra.s oflnsonrly. The National Laa Jaurnsl, SUI) 23, 1979. 8f 1

.United States I Schick. 1 C MI

419 22 C M R 209 1195s).

MILITARY LlW REVIEW [VOL. 94

and which reits upon the premise that man's behavior is molded hi forces beyond his conscious control.

Mr. Huckabee'r interest in the subject uas further piqued when, after leaving military service and joining the Criminal Section of the Tax Division of the Department of Justice in 1956, he found that the defense bar was beginning to assert psychiatric defenses in connection with tax evasion and other "white collar" crimes. For the re-mainder of his career, Mr. Huckabee %-as inmumental in the formulation and implementation of the government's procedures in cases defended an mental health grounds. This experience has enabled him to set forth, with remarkable clarity. a neutral and thought-provoking treatiae on a complex and controversial subject.

The hook is divided into two parts. The first and major partian considers the history and content of the psychiatric defenses currently being utilized by court systems, and the controversy that these concepts hare generated-a controversy attributable to differing orientations toaards criminal law espoused by the medical and legal professions. The second and shorter 3ectmn addresses a potpourri of related problems, ineluding competence to stand trial, the competence of psychiatnetr to testify in criminal law. matters, the shopping for and briefing of the psychiatric witness, and utilization of "impartial experts" or psychiatric court clinics in conjunction with the adversary process.

If the thesis of Lauyers, Psyehiotnsts and Cnmnal Lou is that the relationship between the two professions has been deteriorating for a quarter of century, the underlying theme of the book is that the two professions must cooperate to develop standards for judpng mental impairment. !dr. Huckabee does not blame the eon-fusion on the medical profession. He feela that a major cause of this probiem 18 that over the years courts and lawyers hare turned their responsibility for determining criminal responsibility over to the ps)ehiatrie profession. As the author stated in an earlier article. "the Courts and psychiatrists seem to apee that the criminal re-sponsibility decision 1s a legal, social and moral judgment for the juq . . (yet) psychiatrists continue to dominate in these determinatmns."5

19811 LAW .mD PSYCHIATRY

The history of this continuing problem is set out in the first three chapters of the book. Huckabee first discusses the four major re-sponsibility tests: .M'.Taghtan,e irresistible impulse,' D~~riiniri

,n and

the American Law Institute (ALII test.8 By the time the reader has finished reading the first two pages he is aware of one facet of the problem-lack of uniformity. For example, fifteen states and all but one federal jurisdiction have adopted the ALI test. The First Circuit and fifteen states utilize .W.Yughtm plua irresistible impulse. About fifteen more states utilize only Wl'mghten, while the Dur-ham test is used in Maine and the Virgin Islands.Lo

BTha PlNaghfen test requirer acquittal rf ''at the r m e oi the commmng of the act. the paif? aeeuied laboring under such B deiect of reasan. from dlsease of the mind as n m ta knou, the nature and qualify of the act he UW domg, or If he did not know he was doing uhat W ~ P qmng." WNaghfen'i Cart,

D Impulse rect IS as fallowr' Although B perror can diitinguah right irom wrong. he 18 not responsible iiitroped rhat hi8 aefioni are not subject toThis felt *as adopted I" Daws v...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT