|
Basic InformationMore InformationLatest NewsIf Prescribed Opioids for Pain, Ask Lots of Questions: FDAState Texting Bans Are Saving Teen Drivers' LivesMillions of Older Americans Can't Get Enough FoodLayoffs and Losses: COVID-19 Leaves U.S. Hospitals in Financial CrisisFDA Goes After Unproven COVID-19 Antibody TestsDuring Droughts, Many Poor Americans Will Lack Clean Tap Water: StudyDid the Movie 'Joker' Reinforce Prejudice Against Mentally Ill?AHA News: How to Get the Most Out of Health AppsCoronavirus Conspiracy Theories Abound, and They Could Cause Real HarmAHA News: Health Emergency? Don't Hesitate to Get HelpAn Expert's Guide to Fact-Checking Coronavirus Info OnlineRacial, Ethnic Gaps in Insurance Put Moms, Babies at Risk: StudyCelebrity Suicides Spawn 'Copycat' Tragedies, Study ShowsVaccine Myths Widespread on the Web, Especially Facebook: Study
The Doctor Gap: In Areas of Greatest Need, Primary Care Is a Team Effort">
The Doctor Gap: In Areas of Greatest Need, Primary Care Is a Team EffortThe Doctor Gap: Where Are All the Mental Health Care Providers?New, Graphic Health Warnings Coming for U.S. Cigarette PacksWith New Boost From Medicare, 'Telemedicine' Steps Up to Fight CoronavirusThe Doctor Gap: In Rural America, It's All Hands on DeckThe Doctor Gap: A Training Program for Country-Doc WannabesDon't Believe All the 'Science' on CBD ProductsMany Car Crash Deaths Involve Alcohol Levels Below Legal Limit: StudyThe Doctor Gap: Does America Have a Physician Shortage?12 Weeks of Paid Maternity Leave Benefits Everyone: StudyVaping Videos Soaring on YouTubeU.S. Blood Donors Needed in Face of COVID-19 CrisisIt's Tough for Clinical Trial Participants to Learn ResultsBogus Coronavirus 'Meds' Targeted by FDAOnly 1 in 5 Have Fast Access to State-of-the-Art Stroke CareOne Key Way to Curb Coronavirus Spread: More Paid Sick LeaveU.S. Drug Prices Have Risen Three Times Faster Than InflationU.S. Announces More Travel Restrictions as First Coronavirus Death ReportedIt's Not Medical Outcomes That Drive Patients' Hospital ReviewsChicago's Short-Lived 'Soda Tax' Cut Consumption, Boosted Health Care FundsSocial Media Stokes Myths About VaccinesBrand-Name Rx Rise After Docs Get Drug Company Perks: StudyAs Prices Rise for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's Meds, Patients Go WithoutRoll Up Your Sleeve and Donate Blood for Cancer PatientsShotguns Often Play Tragic Role in Rural Teens' Suicides: StudyPrice Hikes Have Patients Turning to Craigslist for Insulin, Asthma InhalersConsumers Waste Twice as Much Food as Experts ThoughtStricter Clean Air Laws Could Save Thousands of Lives a Year: StudyCaregivers Give Short Shrift to Their Own HealthMedicare Could Save Billions If Allowed to Negotiate Insulin PricesDentists Among Top Prescribers of OpioidsBedside 'Sitters' May Not Prevent Hospital FallsDoes Race Play a Part in ICU Outcomes?When Pharmacists Allowed to Give Anti-Opioid Med Without Rx, Access SoarsNew Study Supports Lowering Age of First ColonoscopyAgeism Affects People Around the Globe Questions and AnswersLinksBook Reviews |
| |
by Alec Buchanan Jessica Kingsley, 2000 Review by Jerome Young on Sep 8th 2002 
Buchanan’s
Psychiatric Aspects of Justification, Excuse and Mitigation is a
scholarly work that tackles a broad subject but does so with brevity and
flair. Buchanan aims to critically
assess the means Anglo-American law provides for dealing with criminal acts in
which the perpetrator suffers from a mental disorder and is, therefore, not
blamed or not punished as severely.
Specifically, he examines the ways psychiatric factors are used in the
courts to excuse, justify, or mitigate against unlawful acts. Because the book is short, and because the
subject matter is wide, it is quite dense.
Yet, he writes with such clarity and concision that it is an eminently
readable book. Buchanan addresses his
subject through a critical, i.e. philosophical, perspective and draws on a
wealth of literature as well as precedent setting legal cases to argue that the
current legal provisions need revision.
Even though Buchanan’s book is argumentative, it is not dogmatic—in
fact, his suggestions seem quite sensible.
He
begins Chapter One (entitled “Preliminaries”) by addressing the issue of free
will and determinism in the law. He
concludes that free will is a necessary starting point in the law because
without it the concept of responsibility would make no sense. In the remainder of the book he
systematically examines the principles that led to the development of special
court arrangements (i.e. legal and medical devices) for mentally disordered
individuals who commit crimes because in these instance individuals are not
responsible for what they do. The
general question he addresses is: Why do some people benefit, and others do
not, from these legal and medical devices?
Chapters
Two and Three focus on explaining the terms justification, excuse and
mitigation. Buchanan gives definitions,
both in terms of the law and in terms of common usage, and attempts to clarify
conceptually the significance of the terms.
He provides copious references to the literature, psychiatric and
philosophic, as well as a plethora of legal cases that served to set precedents
in this area of Anglo-American law. To
explicate the term “justification”, Buchanan examines works by jurisprudential
theorists and particular judgments made by judges in legal cases. After a careful analysis, he concluded that
there was an inconsistency between jurisprudential theory and the everyday
practice of judges. In examining the
term “excuse”, he looked critically at several different philosophical
theories, those advocated by Bentham, Kant, and Hume, as a way to show the
varied approaches one can use to excuse in the criminal justice system. With mitigation, Buchanan looked at the
general factors that can influence sentencing, and specifically examined the
issues of provocation and diminished responsibility. In all instances, importantly, he backed up his analysis and
criticisms with references to legal cases.
For this reason, his work is informed and, on the whole, even
balanced.
Chapter
Four addresses the question: Can mental states excuse? He proceeds to examine how psychological
conditions can affect mental processes because “we excuse on the basis of
internal factors.” He was primarily
concerned with how these conditions affect capacity, opportunity, and the
soundness of the agent’s character because if these conditions are to exculpate
a person, they must impair that person’s ability to make a choice. Some of the general themes he examined are
consciousness, emotions, impulsiveness, thought, and belief. Buchanan’s analysis drew extensively on
psychiatric sources and he discussed many mental disorders, such as dissociative
states, personality disorders, depression, schizophrenia, and OCD, that may
affect a person’s ability to make a choice.
Chapter
Five looks at how Anglo-American law has traditionally excused certain acts
deemed to be the result of a person’s disordered mental state. He looked at the insanity defense,
irresistible impulse, the product test, and automatism. He spent a considerable amount of time
discussing the nature of voluntary and involuntary acts since this is really
the crux of whether a person can be excused or not. Chapter Six critically assessed these provisions and looked at
the drawbacks. He argued that the
current laws do not adequately account for all the types of excuses that
different mentally disordered individuals may offer in a courtroom
setting. Finally, in Chapter Seven, he
considered alternatives to the current provisions and examined the possibility
of doing away with the insanity defense (what he calls the “abolitionist”
position), looked at the proposals of the Butler Committee, and then considered
the nature of wanting, a theory derived from the philosophical works of H.G.
Frankfurt. His suggestions are sensible
and, as would be expected from such a consummate scholar, he presented persuasive
reasons to back up his position.
Buchanan’s
critique of the legal provisions for mentally disordered individuals drew on
many fine resources—philosophical, jurisprudential, legal, and psychological
and psychiatric—and I found myself going back and forth in the book checking
references constantly. The book is a
fine example of good research and philosophical even-handedness. It provides copious references to important
legal cases as well as other works relevant to the conceptualization of the
current provisions concerning the psychiatrically disordered. For this reason, his work is a useful
resource for those unfamiliar with the legal and philosophical bases for the
legal provisions in the Anglo-American tradition. But more than that, his work is a provocative assessment of the
current provisions governing the distribution of punishment for disordered
individuals. Buchanan’s book would be
of interest to anyone who would like to know about the origins of
Anglo-American juridical processes concerning psychiatric matters and would be
of interest to those who are especially interested in reading a critique of
these laws. It is a finely structured
work, well articulated, and provocative.
I have only the highest of praise for his accomplishment. Anyone interested in learning about this profoundly
important topic would find this book a worthy place to begin.
©
2001 Jerome Young
Jerome Young is a foreign lecturer at Keio
University SFC (Kanagawa, Japan) and a post-graduate student in the Philosophy
of Mental Health program at the University of Warwick (England).
|
