Mental Abnormality And Changes In Law

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28984, 27 August 1959, Page 16

Mental Abnormality And Changes In Law

"The Press' Special Service

WELLINGTON, August 26.

The laws of New Zealand would change and did change as the situation required, said Dr. K. R. Stallworthy, the director of Tokanui Mental Hospital, Auckland, and a leading author on mental illnesses in a lecture. “Mental Abnormality and the Law,” to the biennial conference of the New Zealand branch of the British Psychological Society at Victoria University. “Implicit in what I have said is that the law must change, will change, and does change, as the situation requires,” he told a large and distinguished audience “The law may not keep pace with enlightened public opinion, but it will only lag a step or two behind.”

Although a murderer today could only be judged insane under the provisions of an Act brought down in haste in 1833, in fact, persons who were insane but would not be considered so under the McNaughton Act were now usually found “unfit to plead," said Dr. Stallworthy. Philosophy Changing An example of changing laws was the fact that for recent years no-one had been sentenced in New Zealand for attempted suicide. It was becoming recognised that the majority of persons who attempted suicide did so on impulse and were usually unstable personalities. The same thing could be said of many murderers. “Murder is much more often the impulsive and instantly regretted action of an unstable person,” he said. The whole philosophy of the law towards crime had changed, said Dr. Stallworthy. Where only 100 years ago the emphasis had been on punishment and retribution, today punishments were regarded in the light of deterrents and reformation, with the aim being a discharged prisoner having no further desire to offend.

In practice things did not always work out that way, and the England of 1800, which executed 300 prisoners for minor crimes—some on gibbets holding 24 wretches at a time —at least did not have the recurrent criminals who were a feature in New Zealand courts today. Crime Continues ‘‘However, this savage retribution and punishment did nothing to reduce criminality. Undoubtedly there were many people whom the threat of punishment deterred from such things as driving cars while drunk,” he said.

“But there are many crimes committed by people who are so emotionally disturbed that they have no cognisance of a deterrent. There are abnormal personalities that cannot be deterred.”

Two things were an overwhelming advantage in avoiding mental difficulties. One was being born with the right ancestors, free from any such trouble, the other was to be born into the right home, where warmth, love and a kindly discipline meant so much to mental health of the child and adult. The professions of law and of psychiatry and psychology took opposed views of a criminal. To the lawyer, the wrongdoer was a man to be punished to the full extent of the law. To the psychiatrist, a wrongdoer was a man in need of treatment, a maladjusted personality. Medical Opinions

“The lawyer sees the world in terms of black and white, guilty or not guilty,” said the speaker. To a psychiatrist the world was a mass of intermediate greys, where the dividing line between sane and insane behaviour was sometimes very hard to define. “We know, for instance, that many husbands when embracing their wives shut their eyes and dissolve into voluptuous fantasies

with Sabrina,” he said. Every man was subject at times to strange and aberrant desires. Doctors and lawyers speak a different language. Words are dangerous things, especially when they are used by skilled adversaries to gain a point. The issue is determined by the evidence, and not by the truth, ani these two may be very different. A trial for murder is charged with emotion. It is a battle. This was often the reason that doctors appearing for different sides in a murder trial appeared to give divergent views of the accused’s sanity. Often the medical opinions coincided on the basic points, but were made by the skill of counsel to appear to markedly differ. Wide publicity was often given to these apparent differences.

In the Haigh murder trial both sides had held that the accused was grossly abnormal. The defence had contended that because of this, he should be acquitted of the charge. The prosecution had said that because Haigh was not insane under the McNaughton Act, he should be fuond guilty. And quite properly. It was not the duty of a psychiatrist to tell Judges what the law should be, but to provide their evidence and then let the Court decide.

There was an increasing readiness in New Zealand Courts to follow the advice of a soundlybased and commonsense report on the condition of an accused presented by a psychiatrist, said Dr. Stallworthy. “When the advice is common sense, and soundly based, and appears a reasonable recommendation for the disposal of the prisoner, it is increasingly common for that advice to be accepted,” he said.

Today at Tokanui Mental Hospital two out of three patients were voluntary, said Dr. Stallworthy. This was a reversal of only a few years ago, when the majority of patients had to be committed. Most people realised today that mental hospitals could treat and cure, and were no longer the last resort, a prison for the hopeless.