rss
J Med Ethics 1986;12:24-27 doi:10.1136/jme.12.1.24
  • Research Article

Anomalies of Section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957.

Abstract

Section 2 of the 1957 Homicide Act is indefensible: the concept of 'mental responsibility' is a hybrid which turns the psychiatrist witness either into a thirteenth juryman or a spare barrister. But reform does not lie along the lines suggested by the Butler Committee or the Criminal Law Revision Committee. The latter leaves the jury with insufficient guidance; the former returns to the bad eighteenth century policy of treating mental illness not as a factor in determining responsibility but as a status exempting from responsibility. The much criticised McNaughton rules provide a sounder basis for deciding where responsibility should be assigned in criminal cases.

Register for free content


Free sample
This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of JME.
View free sample issue >>

Free archive
The full back archive is now available for JME. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006, back to volume 1 issue 1.
Register to access the free archive >>

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.