Griew E
J Med Ethics. 1986 Mar;12(1):18-23. doi: 10.1136/jme.12.1.18.
This paper compares two versions of the diminished responsibility defence, which reduces murder to manslaughter: the present statutory formulation and a proposed reformulation. The comparison confirms that evidence such as psychiatrists are commonly invited to give in murder cases takes them beyond their proper role. Paradoxically, although the two formulations mean essentially the same thing, the proposed change of wording must have the practical effect of subduing the psychiatrist's evidence. This conclusion leads to speculation about why psychiatrists are at present allowed so large a function in diminished responsibility cases and to some general observations about the role of the expert in relation to those of judge and jury.
本文比较了减轻责任抗辩的两个版本，该抗辩可将谋杀罪降为 manslaughter（此处结合语境应译为“过失杀人罪”）：现行的法定表述和一项拟议的重新表述。比较结果证实，诸如精神病医生在谋杀案中通常被邀请提供的证据，超出了他们的适当职责范围。矛盾的是，尽管这两种表述本质上意思相同，但拟议的措辞更改必然会产生抑制精神病医生证据的实际效果。这一结论引发了对为何目前在减轻责任案件中允许精神病医生发挥如此大作用的猜测，并对专家相对于法官和陪审团的角色进行了一些一般性观察。
