Mind over Morality
Forensic psychologist Steven K. Erickson has a fascinating law review article that focuses on the meeting of the law and the mind. Erickson reviews the book, Minds on Trial: Great Cases in Law and Psychology,
"an upfront and personal account of twenty of the leading cases in forensic psychology."
Read the whole thing--you will find it worth your time.
"an upfront and personal account of twenty of the leading cases in forensic psychology." Read the whole thing--you will find it worth your time.
Labels: forensic psychology
posted by Helen at 8:36 AM
2 Comments:
Though the author clearly feels the Clark decision was the equivalent of an asteroid impact which will destroy the old dinosaur of the M'Naughten rule, I think the old dinosaur may yet emerge with not even singed eyebrows. The exculpatory evidence, apparently omitted in Clark, included that Clark fancied that some police forces had been infiltrated by aliens. One assumes this may have helped Clark feel less alien himself. In the case of M'Naughten, we stipulate that M'Naughten believed that the Scottish ambassador whom he was subsequently to kill was in fact conspiring to kill M'Naughten. Thus his belief would meet the test under the Arizona law that his mental illness directly impinged on his understanding of right and wrong in his action. The Yale author, though well meaning in a sense, seems to take a tried and true method of superiority by cultural relativism in establishing his elitism and his argument. He would have us bow down to any implications in Clark's internal psychological 'culture' which held that some police were aliens. IMHO, this is not too different from an argument that, since Muslims may religiously believe that infidels should be put to the sword, we can merely be more vigilant that shipping containers don't contain explosives post 9-11.
Dude, what have you been smoking? I can't make heads or tails of your arguement. I thought the article was great.
Post a Comment
<< Home