(2 of 2)
No Easy Out. Siding with the psychiatrists, the court reasoned: "As an exclusive criterion the right-wrong test is inadequate in that a) it does not take sufficient account of psychic realities and scientific knowledge, and b) it is based upon one symptom and so cannot validly be applied in all circumstances . . . The 'irresistible impulse' test is also inadequate, in that it gives no recognition to mental illnesses characterized by brooding and reflection ... A broader test should be adopted." The proposed test, already known as the "Durham Rule": a jury must decide 1) whether an accused was suffering from "a diseased or defective mental condition" when he committed the crime, and 2) if so, whether the crime was the "product" of such abnormality.
Psychiatrists and lawyers see major difficulties in this ruling, e.g., how to define such terms as "disease," "defect," "product." Many fear that it would be too easy for criminals to take refuge in "mental disease." Actually, if properly administered, the Durham rule would not necessarily have such results; in many cases, the defense would have a hard time proving a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the mental illness and the crime. The Durham rule, by allowing freer psychiatric testimony, might also undermine many defense attempts based on "irresistible impulse." which in the past has been responsible for some highly questionable acquittals. Said the Circuit Court's opinion: "Juries will continue to make moral judgments . . . But in making such judgments, they will be guided by wider horizons of knowledge concerning mental life."