Goldstein R L, Rotter M
Practice of Psychiatry Program, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York, NY.
Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1988;16(4):359-67.
In insanity defense litigation, the precise legal definition of wrongfulness is often critically important. References in the M'Naghten Rules to the appropriate standard of wrongfulness were ambiguous, resulting in a divergence of judicial opinion as to whether wrongfulness means legal wrong, subjective moral wrong, or objective moral wrong. This article reviews and analyzes these three judicial standards of wrongfulness in the context of case law from jurisdictions that follow each of the respective standards. The evolution of knowledge of right and wrong tests of criminal responsibility is traced back to its philosophical roots. Most psychiatrists claim no expertise in matters of morality or law. The American Psychiatric Association would bar psychiatric expert testimony on the ultimate issue of insanity, on the grounds that there are "impermissible leaps in logic" when psychiatrists opine on the probable relationship between medical concepts and moral-legal constructs. Whether or not they testify on the ultimate issue, psychiatrists should ascertain the applicable standard of wrongfulness in order to properly relate their findings to the relevant legal criteria for insanity and thereby enhance the probative value of their testimony.
在精神错乱辩护诉讼中，不法行为的确切法律定义往往至关重要。麦克诺顿规则中关于不法行为适当标准的表述含糊不清，导致司法意见在不法行为是指法律上的错误、主观道德上的错误还是客观道德上的错误这一问题上出现分歧。本文在遵循各自标准的司法管辖区的判例法背景下，对这三种不法行为的司法标准进行了回顾和分析。刑事责任中是非判断标准的知识演变可追溯到其哲学根源。大多数精神科医生声称自己在道德或法律问题上没有专业知识。美国精神病学协会将禁止精神科专家就精神错乱的最终问题作证，理由是当精神科医生就医学概念与道德法律结构之间的可能关系发表意见时，存在“不允许的逻辑跳跃”。无论精神科医生是否就最终问题作证，他们都应确定适用的不法行为标准，以便将其调查结果与精神错乱的相关法律标准正确联系起来，从而提高其证词的证明力。
