Passage II
SOCIAL SCIENCE: This passage is adapted from the chapter “Personality Disorders” in Introduction to Psychology, edited by Rita L. Atkinson and Richard C. Atkinson (©1981 by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.).
How should the law treat a mentally disturbed
person who commits a criminal offen? Should indi-
viduals who mental faculties are impaired be held
responsible for their actions? The questions are of
5concern to social scientists, to members of the legal
profession, and to individuals who work with criminal
offenders.
Over the centuries, an important part of Western
law has been the concept that a civilized society should
10not punish a person who is mentally incapable of con-
trolling his or her conduct. In 1724, an English court
maintained that a man was not responsible for an act if
“he doth not know what he is doing, no more than . . . a
wild beast.” Modern standards of legal responsibility,
15however, have been bad on the McNaghten decision
of 1843. McNaghten, a Scotsman, suffered the paranoid
delusion that he was being percuted by the English
prime minister, Sir Robert Peel. In an attempt to kill
Peel, he mistakenly shot Peel’s cretary. Everyone
20英语六级模板involved in the trial was convinced by McNaghten’s
nless ramblings that he was insane. He was judged
not responsible by reason of insanity and nt to a
mental hospital, where he remained until his death. But
Queen Victoria was not plead with the verdict—
25white foxapparently she felt that political assassinations should
心情不好听什么歌not be taken lightly—and called on the Hou of Lords
to review the decision. The decision was upheld and
rules for the legal definition of insanity were put into
writing. The McNaghten Rule states that a defendant
30may be found “not guilty by reason of insanity” only if
he were so verely disturbed at the time of his act that
he did not know what he was doing, or that if he did
know what he was doing, he did not know it was
wrong.
35The McNaghten Rule was adopted in the United
States, and the distinction of knowing right from wrong
remained the basis of most decisions of legal insanity
for over a century. Some states added to their statutes
the doctrine of “irresistible impul,” which recognizes
40spiritthat some mentally ill individuals may respond cor-
rectly when asked if a particular act is morally right or
wrong but still be unable to control their behavior.
During the 1970s, a number of state and federal
courts adopted a broader legal definition of insanity
45propod by the American Law Institute, which states:
“A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at
the time of such conduct, as a result of mental dia
or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appre-
ciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his
50conduct to the requirements of the law.” The word sub-
stantial suggests that “any” incapacity is not enough to经理英文
avoid criminal responsibility but that “total” incapacity
is not required either. The u of the word lucifer什么意思appreciate
rather than know implies that intellectual awareness of
55right or wrong is not enough; individuals must have
some understanding of the moral or legal conquences
of their behavior before they can be held criminally
responsible.
The problem of legal responsibility in the ca of
免费学英语
60mentally disordered individuals is currently a topic of
inten debate, and a number of legal and mental health
professionals have recommended abolishing the
insanity plea as a defen. The reasons for this recom-
mendation are varied. Many experts believe that the
十一月 英文65current courtroom procedures—in which psychiatrists
and psychologists for the procution and the defen
prent contradictory evidence as to the defendant’s
mental state—are confusing to the jury and do little to
ego
help the cau of justice. Some also argue that the
70abu of the insanity plea by clever lawyers has
allowed too many criminals to escape conviction.
Others claim that acquittal by reason of insanity often
leads to a wor punishment (an indeterminate ntence
to an institution for the criminally insane that may con-
75fine a person for life) than being convicted and nt to
prison (with the possibility of parole in a few years).免费英语听力
Despite the current controversy, actual cas of
