Abstract
Comparison is made between the position of the expert in forensic psychiatry, whether his testimony is presented in accordance with the still legally enforced M'Naghten Rules or with the Durham Rules which are increasingly more popular, at least in the minds of the testifying psychiatrists.
Psychiatrists are reluctant to enter the witness box because of the anachronistic and unscientific M'Naghten Rules, which are based on a simplistic and incomplete definition of mental illness.
The social circumstances prevailing in England at the formulation of the M'Naghten Rules in 1843 were briefly reviewed. A few psychiatric diagnoses were quoted showing the great difficulty for Crown and defence experts to clearly and efficiently help the jury and the bench in reaching the most proper verdict which is humanly possible.
Mention is made of the Durham Rules already followed in a few American States, insisting on the fact that these rules relieve the expert of presenting a moral judgement, allow a scientific and truly medical testimony, and allow also the psychiatrist to forward his opinion as to the presence or absence of relationship between the incriminating gesture and the mental condition of the accused at the time of his crime.
The consequence of the confusing wording of the Criminal Code, Article CCC16, inspired by the M'Naghten Rules having led to an unfortunate and unpleasant depreciation of psychiatry, it is suggested that a commission of two or three experts be appointed by bodies such as the Bar, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, a Faculty of Medicine or a Psychiatric Association, with the provision that a joint report be presented to the Court.
The opinion is expressed that the abolition of capital punishment, allied to the spirit of the Durham Rules, would improve and facilitate the administration of justice in the greatest interest of the accused and society.