Goldstein R L
Psychiatry Program, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York, NY.
Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1989;17(2):121-8.
Whether or not the psychiatrist testifies on the ultimate issue in insanity defense cases, it is critically important that he familiarize himself with the applicable legal standards and interpretations in order properly to relate his clinical findings to the relevant criteria for insanity and thereby enhance the probative value of his testimony. This is the third in a series of articles which attempts to explicate judicial and statutory standards of insanity and correlate them with the psychiatrist's findings of psychopathology. This article analyzes the Model Penal Code formulation of insanity, with special emphasis on the all important distinction between "know" and "appreciate." This formulation permits the defendant possessed of mere surface knowledge or cognition to be exculpated, requiring that he have a deeper affective appreciation of the legal and moral import of the conduct involved if he is to be held criminally responsible. The Model Penal Code approach more readily lends itself to application as a standard of responsibility in cases involving affective disorders. An important disorder within this group, postpartum depression, is discussed in the context of raising the insanity defense in a case of infanticide.
无论精神病医生是否就精神错乱辩护案件中的最终问题作证,至关重要的是,他要熟悉适用的法律标准和解释,以便恰当地将他的临床发现与精神错乱的相关标准联系起来,从而提高他证词的证明力。这是一系列文章中的第三篇,这些文章试图阐明精神错乱的司法和法定标准,并将它们与精神病医生的精神病理学发现联系起来。本文分析了《模范刑法典》中精神错乱的表述,特别强调了“知道”和“认识到”之间的重要区别。这种表述允许仅仅拥有表面知识或认知的被告被免责,要求如果他要承担刑事责任,他必须对所涉行为的法律和道德意义有更深刻的情感认识。《模范刑法典》的方法更容易作为涉及情感障碍案件的责任标准加以适用。在一宗杀婴案件中提出精神错乱辩护的背景下,讨论了这一群体中的一种重要疾病——产后抑郁症。